I agree with the author that there is still cause for pessimism, despite recent Ukrainian military victories but I don’t see the threat he outlines as being a plausible one.
The Ukrainian victories in Kharkiv and Kherson were both morally and strategically important, the former removed the threat of a northern front opening up on the Donbas whilst the latter likely means that Odessa will remain in Ukrainian hands, assuring the country will not become land locked and remain a viable economy.
However, for the third successive time, Russia, whilst enduring a humiliating defeats, were able to successful withdraw its troops without any evidence of encirclement or mass surrender occurring. What is more, the US is now estimating Russian and Ukrainian casualties to be at parity now, back in the summer, the ratio was believed to be two to one to the Ukraines advantage. Whilst this should be expected, as those on the offensive frequently take more casualties than the defenders, it shows that Russia has been able to mount an effective defence, particularly in Kherson where Russian military bloggers reports of heavy Ukraine casualties appear to have been vindicated.
The fresh troops Russia is bringing to the war should be a concern. They have military training and in truth will be no worse that the majority of troops Ukraine has been able to muster to great effect. I cannot, however, see them being launch on an offensive from Belarus to cut Ukrainian supply lines for the following reasons.
The Ukrainian Belarusian border is remote, marshy and heavily forested. The Northern front on Kyiv was an Ardennes like offensive, attacking through unfavourable terrain to maximise the element of surprise. We saw that once opposed, the whole offensive ground to a halt. In dense woodland terrain, there are few available axis of advance, once one has been shut down it can be next to impossible to by pass defensive positions or bring fresh troops up to assault, so difficult is manoeuvre.
The other critical issue Russia would face is that US surveillance and intelligence capabilities are so great that they are unable mount any large scale offensive with any element of surprise, which I expect is largely why they attacked on such a broad front at the outset of the war, hoping to over stretch Ukraines military, rather than adopting the more orthodox approach of attacking on a single concentrated front, where the defender would usually be forced to guess the exact point the attack would fall.
Finally, the main artery that runs from Liviv to Kyiv can be bypassed further south. It would certainly be disruptive if this route was closed down but to stop supplies entirely, the offensive would have to penetrate several hundred kilometres into Ukraine and then hold that territory be held against counter offensives, I don’t see this happening with the resources Russia has.
Where I do think there is cause for concern is not that Russia will use its fresh troops to bring the war to a rapid conclusion but the opposite, that will use them to drag the war out and win the battle of attrition, both with Ukraine and the West.
Fresh troops will make further Ukrainian offensive far more difficult. Both Kharkiv and Kherson exploited either a very large numerical imbalance or a geographic advantage; trying to supply an extended front over a major water way with heavy interdiction taking place. Those conditions will be difficult to replicate (though I have heard rumblings of Crimea being very difficult to keep supplied).
Where the Russian army has had success, is where it’s been able to fix its opponent and bring its fire superiority to bare, which it still retains, despite the Ukrainian acquirement of high precision western combat systems. These are exactly the conditions the Russian army now finds itself with in the Donbas.
Strategic withdrawal is not an option for Ukrainian forces, they cannot cede this land to the Russian so are forced to abandon the war of manoeuvre they have been successfully applying and stand and face the Russian artillery. So far the fighting in Donbas indicates that the Russians are able to inflict significant casualties in this scenario, whilst lacking the infantry to take and hold ground at anything beyond a crawl. This is likely to change with the arrival of the reinforcements.
Both sides are stuck with sunk costs which make any exit extremely difficult now. Russia will not seek peace till they have taken the Donbas, Ukraine will not make peace off the back of losing it. Unfortunately, unless Russian moral collapses, (which is a possibility) a protracted conflict is likely in their favour. Ukraines infrastructure is being badly degraded and Russia is so far withstanding western sanctions, whist causing real pain to the European economy.
Another year of sky high energy and food prices could test western resolve to its limits. Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly. The result is a death spiral for all involved, that becomes more costly the longer it goes on.
The danger is not that Russia will try end this war suddenly. It’s that it’s willing to keep it going indefinitely.
Yes really good, informed comment. I’d add that Russian forces lack quality NCOs (basically a tier of Sergeants) that provide unit leadership, initiative and ‘go forward’. Those they had probably decimated by the fighting to date. You can’t easily train this culture when you’ve not had it in depth in the first place.
So it does feel a long war and potential stalemate where we are heading. The longer range Himar missiles will give Ukraine the ability to strike further behind Russian lines and damage their resupply but without more armoured force they can’t roll up the Russian fixed positions.
The country is so vast as well, and often overlooked. Huge distances for logistics. And that reduces strike force. One properly armoured Division nowhere near enough given the geography.
What might change this? Been alot of surprises so far so we shouldn’t discount more to come. Putin Praetorian guard aren’t about to replace him but you just wonder if the Russian people beginning to stir and if the forced mobilisations and gradual sanctions ‘bite’ might become more a factor than to date. Look at what’s happened suddenly in Iran. But perhaps not til mid next year.
Thus we’ve got to stay the course and give Ukraine all the help we can. We help them get to the point Putin seeks a deal and then we help Zelensky compromise by providing longer term security guarantees
Great comment and accurate. I frankly think that your military analysis of the situation shows far more depth and insight than the author’s in significantly less space. Putin would be foolish to do anything other than exactly what you suggest, but then who knows what’s in that man’s head.
“Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly.”
I don’t believe the US would hesitate for a moment to stab their allies in the back if it suited US interests. They will come up with some form of fabricated justification which makes it appear less blatant (relieve Europe’s economic suffering, a sudden “discovery” that a good portion of the weaponry they are sending is ending up on the black market instead of the battlefield etc). But for now the rich pickings for the MIC in fighting a proxy war make your scenario much more probable.
Refreshingly realistic. Why it has been so difficult to find this sort of balanced, informed reporting in the likes of The Times and Telegraph is proof that the MSM in this country – as in many others – is simply not fit for purpose. Calling Russian regrouping from Kharkiv and Kherson as victories, as is required as editorial style in the UK MSM, omits the fact they are willing to surrender territory to minimise losses and live to fight another day. This is not a ‘victory’ in the truest sense of the word. And with Ukraine at night resembling North Korea, credible reporting on the continued Russian threat is all that’s worth reading.
Yes really good, informed comment. I’d add that Russian forces lack quality NCOs (basically a tier of Sergeants) that provide unit leadership, initiative and ‘go forward’. Those they had probably decimated by the fighting to date. You can’t easily train this culture when you’ve not had it in depth in the first place.
So it does feel a long war and potential stalemate where we are heading. The longer range Himar missiles will give Ukraine the ability to strike further behind Russian lines and damage their resupply but without more armoured force they can’t roll up the Russian fixed positions.
The country is so vast as well, and often overlooked. Huge distances for logistics. And that reduces strike force. One properly armoured Division nowhere near enough given the geography.
What might change this? Been alot of surprises so far so we shouldn’t discount more to come. Putin Praetorian guard aren’t about to replace him but you just wonder if the Russian people beginning to stir and if the forced mobilisations and gradual sanctions ‘bite’ might become more a factor than to date. Look at what’s happened suddenly in Iran. But perhaps not til mid next year.
Thus we’ve got to stay the course and give Ukraine all the help we can. We help them get to the point Putin seeks a deal and then we help Zelensky compromise by providing longer term security guarantees
Great comment and accurate. I frankly think that your military analysis of the situation shows far more depth and insight than the author’s in significantly less space. Putin would be foolish to do anything other than exactly what you suggest, but then who knows what’s in that man’s head.
“Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly.”
I don’t believe the US would hesitate for a moment to stab their allies in the back if it suited US interests. They will come up with some form of fabricated justification which makes it appear less blatant (relieve Europe’s economic suffering, a sudden “discovery” that a good portion of the weaponry they are sending is ending up on the black market instead of the battlefield etc). But for now the rich pickings for the MIC in fighting a proxy war make your scenario much more probable.
Refreshingly realistic. Why it has been so difficult to find this sort of balanced, informed reporting in the likes of The Times and Telegraph is proof that the MSM in this country – as in many others – is simply not fit for purpose. Calling Russian regrouping from Kharkiv and Kherson as victories, as is required as editorial style in the UK MSM, omits the fact they are willing to surrender territory to minimise losses and live to fight another day. This is not a ‘victory’ in the truest sense of the word. And with Ukraine at night resembling North Korea, credible reporting on the continued Russian threat is all that’s worth reading.
Matthew Powell
1 year ago
I agree with the author that there is still cause for pessimism, despite recent Ukrainian military victories but I don’t see the threat he outlines as being a plausible one.
The Ukrainian victories in Kharkiv and Kherson were both morally and strategically important, the former removed the threat of a northern front opening up on the Donbas whilst the latter likely means that Odessa will remain in Ukrainian hands, assuring the country will not become land locked and remain a viable economy.
However, for the third successive time, Russia, whilst enduring a humiliating defeats, were able to successful withdraw its troops without any evidence of encirclement or mass surrender occurring. What is more, the US is now estimating Russian and Ukrainian casualties to be at parity now, back in the summer, the ratio was believed to be two to one to the Ukraines advantage. Whilst this should be expected, as those on the offensive frequently take more casualties than the defenders, it shows that Russia has been able to mount an effective defence, particularly in Kherson where Russian military bloggers reports of heavy Ukraine casualties appear to have been vindicated.
The fresh troops Russia is bringing to the war should be a concern. They have military training and in truth will be no worse that the majority of troops Ukraine has been able to muster to great effect. I cannot, however, see them being launch on an offensive from Belarus to cut Ukrainian supply lines for the following reasons.
The Ukrainian Belarusian border is remote, marshy and heavily forested. The Northern front on Kyiv was an Ardennes like offensive, attacking through unfavourable terrain to maximise the element of surprise. We saw that once opposed, the whole offensive ground to a halt. In dense woodland terrain, there are few available axis of advance, once one has been shut down it can be next to impossible to by pass defensive positions or bring fresh troops up to assault, so difficult is manoeuvre.
The other critical issue Russia would face is that US surveillance and intelligence capabilities are so great that they are unable mount any large scale offensive with any element of surprise, which I expect is largely why they attacked on such a broad front at the outset of the war, hoping to over stretch Ukraines military, rather than adopting the more orthodox approach of attacking on a single concentrated front, where the defender would usually be forced to guess the exact point the attack would fall.
Finally, the main artery that runs from Liviv to Kyiv can be bypassed further south. It would certainly be disruptive if this route was closed down but to stop supplies entirely, the offensive would have to penetrate several hundred kilometres into Ukraine and then hold that territory be held against counter offensives, I don’t see this happening with the resources Russia has.
Where I do think there is cause for concern is not that Russia will use its fresh troops to bring the war to a rapid conclusion but the opposite, that will use them to drag the war out and win the battle of attrition, both with Ukraine and the West.
Fresh troops will make further Ukrainian offensive far more difficult. Both Kharkiv and Kherson exploited either a very large numerical imbalance or a geographic advantage; trying to supply an extended front over a major water way with heavy interdiction taking place. Those conditions will be difficult to replicate (though I have heard rumblings of Crimea being very difficult to keep supplied).
Where the Russian army has had success, is where it’s been able to fix its opponent and bring its fire superiority to bare, which it still retains, despite the Ukrainian acquirement of high precision western combat systems. These are exactly the conditions the Russian army now finds itself with in the Donbas.
Strategic withdrawal is not an option for Ukrainian forces, they cannot cede this land to the Russian so are forced to abandon the war of manoeuvre they have been successfully applying and stand and face the Russian artillery. So far the fighting in Donbas indicates that the Russians are able to inflict significant casualties in this scenario, whilst lacking the infantry to take and hold ground at anything beyond a crawl. This is likely to change with the arrival of the reinforcements.
Both sides are stuck with sunk costs which make any exit extremely difficult now. Russia will not seek peace till they have taken the Donbas, Ukraine will not make peace off the back of losing it. Unfortunately, unless Russian moral collapses, (which is a possibility) a protracted conflict is likely in their favour. Ukraines infrastructure is being badly degraded and Russia is so far withstanding western sanctions, whist causing real pain to the European economy.
Another year of sky high energy and food prices could test western resolve to its limits. Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly. The result is a death spiral for all involved, that becomes more costly the longer it goes on.
The danger is not that Russia will try end this war suddenly. It’s that it’s willing to keep it going indefinitely.
Snapper AG
1 year ago
I find it hard to believe Russia is capable of launching an attack that could even come within 100 miles of cutting off Kyiv. The border with Belarus is rough and swampy country with no major north south highways, and few secondary roads. The Russians failed at this sort of attack when their army was fresh, and the UAF was unprepared. Now the Russian regular army has been gutted, and the UAF has 750,000 troops in the field.
The Russian can’t possibly have enough officer for 1/10th of their Mobiks, and are running out ancient equipment to replace losses. A mob of disorganized, unmotivated rifleman, with minimal officers, and 1970’s equipment isn’t going to launch a deep strike, combined arms offensive.
Can’t post, for some reason, only reply:
Good article too. But why would a (soon-to-be) victorious Russia accept 1) an independent Ukraine? 2) a plebiscite in Luhansk and Donetsk under conditions that they do nto themselves control?
Russia is losing not winning and as the West continues to ship in armaments and even more deadly armaments the Russians are going to suffer greatly.
Someone in the Kremlin needs to stop this
Maybe during winter there’s enough ground freezing to make the Belarus invasion achievable. The Russians, and probably the author, would know more about it than I would. Even if that’s true, a grand counteroffensive under the conditions you mentioned would be a dubious prospect. In warfare, it is always easier to defend than to attack. Thinking strategically, Russia’s best bet is to dig in and establish sound defensive positions along their entire front, gaining experience for their conscripts while hopefully inflicting higher casualties on the attacking Ukrainians. Make the Ukrainians suffer a cold and dark winter that will drain civilian morale and push Zelensky into negotiating an end to the war, while America with its critically short attention span starts to lose interest and politicians start talking about ‘forever’ wars to test the waters for the 2024 campaign. The enthusiasm for the Ukraine war in the west will fade long before Putin’s resolve does.
I’m having the same problem as Rasmus btw. Not sure whether its a technical issue or membership level thing.
Ditto! The assumption of the article and many of the responses is that the large EU countries are still giving military support to Ukraine. I don’t think that is the case. I listened carefully to what our Prime Minister said in parliament at PMQs and it seemed to me that he focused on humanitarian and social aid.
Ditto! The assumption of the article and many of the responses is that the large EU countries are still giving military support to Ukraine. I don’t think that is the case. I listened carefully to what our Prime Minister said in parliament at PMQs and it seemed to me that he focused on humanitarian and social aid.
Russia is losing not winning and as the West continues to ship in armaments and even more deadly armaments the Russians are going to suffer greatly.
Someone in the Kremlin needs to stop this
Maybe during winter there’s enough ground freezing to make the Belarus invasion achievable. The Russians, and probably the author, would know more about it than I would. Even if that’s true, a grand counteroffensive under the conditions you mentioned would be a dubious prospect. In warfare, it is always easier to defend than to attack. Thinking strategically, Russia’s best bet is to dig in and establish sound defensive positions along their entire front, gaining experience for their conscripts while hopefully inflicting higher casualties on the attacking Ukrainians. Make the Ukrainians suffer a cold and dark winter that will drain civilian morale and push Zelensky into negotiating an end to the war, while America with its critically short attention span starts to lose interest and politicians start talking about ‘forever’ wars to test the waters for the 2024 campaign. The enthusiasm for the Ukraine war in the west will fade long before Putin’s resolve does.
I’m having the same problem as Rasmus btw. Not sure whether its a technical issue or membership level thing.
Coincidentally I have been re-reading Anthony Beevor’s classic history of Stalingrad. I can’t see the parallel with Operation Uranus holding here. In 1942 the Soviet state was willing to commit over a million troops and endure horrendous casualties – including of course thousands of their own troops killed by the NKVD if they sought to “desert”. It had Lend-Lease supplies and Allied support. What we have seen in Ukraine this year is how hollowed-out and weak the Russian military is, the culmination of decades of oligarchic corruption. It probably will engage in low-intensity warfare in occupied regions for possibly years to come, and throw in artillery when it can in a sporadic and occasionally horrific way. A better comparison may be the US in Vietnam. There, the US had to win – all the Vietnamese had to do was not lose.
Yes the analogy just doesn’t hold. For a start Russia had been invaded and was defending its own territory from a murdering war machine where the threat was existential. That provided plenty of innate motivation (reinforced with executions for those not showing sufficient attacking spirit). The same motivation doesn’t exist with invading another country and the Russian solider now knows that the Ukrainian see them as torturers and murderers so the motivational advantage and existential threat is much the other way.
Yes the analogy just doesn’t hold. For a start Russia had been invaded and was defending its own territory from a murdering war machine where the threat was existential. That provided plenty of innate motivation (reinforced with executions for those not showing sufficient attacking spirit). The same motivation doesn’t exist with invading another country and the Russian solider now knows that the Ukrainian see them as torturers and murderers so the motivational advantage and existential threat is much the other way.
Another thing, the author refers to Russia as a great power. Well if you ignore the state of the economy, the effectiveness of their military, the quality of life of their citizens and the endemic corruption, yes you could say that Russia is a Great Power, but you’d still be wrong.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s economy. Yes, the country is huge in area but Moscow is not in control of the whole country and resistance will emerge if the poorer parts are used as continual cannon fodder providers.
I don’t know about the Russian economy but I do know that it has oil and gas which is badly needed by the EU and other countries on this side of the globe and it also has rare minerals which are needed for many modern tech appliances.
“Superfluous” to what?
No, oil and gas is not coming from Texas. Even the US doesn’t get a surplus of oil and gas from Texas any more. And the Dems don’t like fracking or new development. That’s why Biden has been depleting strategic reserves.
And what the US can supply isn’t competitive in price with what Germany etc were getting from the Russians.
Not happening.
Seem to be doing OK so far.
The idea that economic warfare will somehow bring any country or coalition to its knees is unsupported by history.
The war will be won or lost on the battlefield, not by any “special economic operation.”
Seem to be doing OK so far.
The idea that economic warfare will somehow bring any country or coalition to its knees is unsupported by history.
The war will be won or lost on the battlefield, not by any “special economic operation.”
“Superfluous” to what?
No, oil and gas is not coming from Texas. Even the US doesn’t get a surplus of oil and gas from Texas any more. And the Dems don’t like fracking or new development. That’s why Biden has been depleting strategic reserves.
And what the US can supply isn’t competitive in price with what Germany etc were getting from the Russians.
Not happening.
I don’t know about the Russian economy but I do know that it has oil and gas which is badly needed by the EU and other countries on this side of the globe and it also has rare minerals which are needed for many modern tech appliances.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s economy. Yes, the country is huge in area but Moscow is not in control of the whole country and resistance will emerge if the poorer parts are used as continual cannon fodder providers.
There doesn’t appear much evidence that Russia has any long-term designs on Kiev beyond strategic ends of taking the Donbass and ensuring a neutral leadership. To hark back to the initial failed assault is folly, as the OP makes out. Your figures are fanciful. If anything it is the Ukrainian army that has been ‘gutted’ whilst Russian losses appear far fewer than legacy media propagandists have been reporting. Repurposed Russian equipment is being used on both sides, as cost of retraining Ukrainian crews is prohibitive for US/NATO equipment. Russia has repurposed 1000s of T62s and T70s for reservists and to dismiss this is foolish. Production of T90s has been ramped up. Surovikin is clear, as the OP suggests, that this is a war of attrition with the intention to grind Ukraine down. No wonder the US is losing patience with Zelensky…
Can’t post, for some reason, only reply:
Good article too. But why would a (soon-to-be) victorious Russia accept 1) an independent Ukraine? 2) a plebiscite in Luhansk and Donetsk under conditions that they do nto themselves control?
Coincidentally I have been re-reading Anthony Beevor’s classic history of Stalingrad. I can’t see the parallel with Operation Uranus holding here. In 1942 the Soviet state was willing to commit over a million troops and endure horrendous casualties – including of course thousands of their own troops killed by the NKVD if they sought to “desert”. It had Lend-Lease supplies and Allied support. What we have seen in Ukraine this year is how hollowed-out and weak the Russian military is, the culmination of decades of oligarchic corruption. It probably will engage in low-intensity warfare in occupied regions for possibly years to come, and throw in artillery when it can in a sporadic and occasionally horrific way. A better comparison may be the US in Vietnam. There, the US had to win – all the Vietnamese had to do was not lose.
Another thing, the author refers to Russia as a great power. Well if you ignore the state of the economy, the effectiveness of their military, the quality of life of their citizens and the endemic corruption, yes you could say that Russia is a Great Power, but you’d still be wrong.
There doesn’t appear much evidence that Russia has any long-term designs on Kiev beyond strategic ends of taking the Donbass and ensuring a neutral leadership. To hark back to the initial failed assault is folly, as the OP makes out. Your figures are fanciful. If anything it is the Ukrainian army that has been ‘gutted’ whilst Russian losses appear far fewer than legacy media propagandists have been reporting. Repurposed Russian equipment is being used on both sides, as cost of retraining Ukrainian crews is prohibitive for US/NATO equipment. Russia has repurposed 1000s of T62s and T70s for reservists and to dismiss this is foolish. Production of T90s has been ramped up. Surovikin is clear, as the OP suggests, that this is a war of attrition with the intention to grind Ukraine down. No wonder the US is losing patience with Zelensky…
Snapper AG
1 year ago
I find it hard to believe Russia is capable of launching an attack that could even come within 100 miles of cutting off Kyiv. The border with Belarus is rough and swampy country with no major north south highways, and few secondary roads. The Russians failed at this sort of attack when their army was fresh, and the UAF was unprepared. Now the Russian regular army has been gutted, and the UAF has 750,000 troops in the field.
The Russian can’t possibly have enough officer for 1/10th of their Mobiks, and are running out ancient equipment to replace losses. A mob of disorganized, unmotivated rifleman, with minimal officers, and 1970’s equipment isn’t going to launch a deep strike, combined arms offensive.
Julian Townsend
1 year ago
Western Propaganda is a wonderful thing! If only it could win wars outside the imagination of its afficionadi….
So, Russia is out of tanks, out of officers, out of NCOs, has been reduced to fielding conscripts (the Ukrainians being volunteers?) ; is fighting with obsolete equipment (like the Hawk missiles the USA is sending to Ukraine(?) has suffered three “humiliating defeats” (Where? When? The march on Kiew yielded the desired result in Istanbul until Nato and BoJo stuck its oar in, whilst tactical withdrawals such as Kharkov and Kherson are hardly “humiliating” and only arguably defeats (it’s easy to win against an enemy who doesn’t fight you.) Russia has suffered “horrendous” casualties; (er, did you say Russia?) the Russian army is “hollowed out…a mob of disorganised, unmotivated riflemen, with minimal officers and 1970s equipment” (funny how they are winning, then…) but never mind, Western wonderweapons will make sure the dastardly Huns lose while gallant little Belgium… oh sorry, wrong war. Just chuck in some reference (any reference) to Hitler and Napoleon for verisimilitude, there you go, job done…
Meanwhile, in the real world…
You DO know the Huns lost, right?
And that the same thing happened to Hitler and Napoleon?
Read up on “Balance of Power” sometime–and about those who tried to upset it.
And the Napoleonic Wars, and WW2, and the Cold War, and…
That’s how nations always behave when they face existential threats.
Cartoonish alternatives are never adopted.
Sorry, you were born on the wrong planet…
And the Napoleonic Wars, and WW2, and the Cold War, and…
That’s how nations always behave when they face existential threats.
Cartoonish alternatives are never adopted.
Sorry, you were born on the wrong planet…
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old. The T-62 tanks they are using in the South were made in the 1960’s.
Russia is buying drones and guided missiles from Iran because sanctions make it impossible for Russia to make their own guided weapons. They can’t get or make the electronic parts.
In addition, Russian Army corruption makes their logistics situation even worse. About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition. There aren’t enough spare parts to repair all of them. In many cases, the missing parts have been stripped and sold. Some vehicles arrive without engines.
Recently mobilized Russian soldiers recieve minimal training, usually firing about 40 to 60 bullets through an AK-47 on a firing range. Many times they deploy to the front lines with only a couple of officers for 200 to 500 mobiks. Often the officers leave the mobiks on the front lines with no leaders at all. There are numerous complaints on Telgram and TickTock about bad conditions for mobiks.
Russian soldiers must buy much of their own equipment, including uniforms in some cases. Russian sources say 1.5 million uniforms that were officially on the books vanished. They were either stolen or never made.
Some Donetsk and Lugansk infantry units have been issued bolt action Mosin rifles originally designed in 1891, last made in 1979.
Supplies for the Crimea depended on the 12 mile Kerch road and rail bridges across the Kerch Strait. After a Ukrainian attack, the rail bridge can carry only very light traffic, about 16 lightly loaded trains a month instead of 4 or more heavy trains a day. Half of the road bridge is in the water. The other half can carry only cars, and not heavy trucks.
In short the Russians are screwed, and have no way to fix most of the mess for at least 2-4 years. Russia is losing, not winning.
I don’t disagree with most of this, but you say “About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition.” The first requirement for a usable tank must be mobility. If I’m correct, then how did the Russians manage to drive so many onto those flat-bed railroad cars?
I don’t disagree with most of this, but you say “About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition.” The first requirement for a usable tank must be mobility. If I’m correct, then how did the Russians manage to drive so many onto those flat-bed railroad cars?
this comment seems quite …. insane. Russia is “winning.”? Winning a war now in its 9th month that it was expected to win in a week?Is that “western propaganda” too? Seems to me that calling Kherson and Kharkov (and Kiev, remember) as anything but humiliating for the big bad country that expected to win in a week would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as this Putinoid propaganda.
You DO know the Huns lost, right?
And that the same thing happened to Hitler and Napoleon?
Read up on “Balance of Power” sometime–and about those who tried to upset it.
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old. The T-62 tanks they are using in the South were made in the 1960’s.
Russia is buying drones and guided missiles from Iran because sanctions make it impossible for Russia to make their own guided weapons. They can’t get or make the electronic parts.
In addition, Russian Army corruption makes their logistics situation even worse. About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition. There aren’t enough spare parts to repair all of them. In many cases, the missing parts have been stripped and sold. Some vehicles arrive without engines.
Recently mobilized Russian soldiers recieve minimal training, usually firing about 40 to 60 bullets through an AK-47 on a firing range. Many times they deploy to the front lines with only a couple of officers for 200 to 500 mobiks. Often the officers leave the mobiks on the front lines with no leaders at all. There are numerous complaints on Telgram and TickTock about bad conditions for mobiks.
Russian soldiers must buy much of their own equipment, including uniforms in some cases. Russian sources say 1.5 million uniforms that were officially on the books vanished. They were either stolen or never made.
Some Donetsk and Lugansk infantry units have been issued bolt action Mosin rifles originally designed in 1891, last made in 1979.
Supplies for the Crimea depended on the 12 mile Kerch road and rail bridges across the Kerch Strait. After a Ukrainian attack, the rail bridge can carry only very light traffic, about 16 lightly loaded trains a month instead of 4 or more heavy trains a day. Half of the road bridge is in the water. The other half can carry only cars, and not heavy trucks.
In short the Russians are screwed, and have no way to fix most of the mess for at least 2-4 years. Russia is losing, not winning.
this comment seems quite …. insane. Russia is “winning.”? Winning a war now in its 9th month that it was expected to win in a week?Is that “western propaganda” too? Seems to me that calling Kherson and Kharkov (and Kiev, remember) as anything but humiliating for the big bad country that expected to win in a week would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as this Putinoid propaganda.
Julian Townsend
1 year ago
Western Propaganda is a wonderful thing! If only it could win wars outside the imagination of its afficionadi….
So, Russia is out of tanks, out of officers, out of NCOs, has been reduced to fielding conscripts (the Ukrainians being volunteers?) ; is fighting with obsolete equipment (like the Hawk missiles the USA is sending to Ukraine(?) has suffered three “humiliating defeats” (Where? When? The march on Kiew yielded the desired result in Istanbul until Nato and BoJo stuck its oar in, whilst tactical withdrawals such as Kharkov and Kherson are hardly “humiliating” and only arguably defeats (it’s easy to win against an enemy who doesn’t fight you.) Russia has suffered “horrendous” casualties; (er, did you say Russia?) the Russian army is “hollowed out…a mob of disorganised, unmotivated riflemen, with minimal officers and 1970s equipment” (funny how they are winning, then…) but never mind, Western wonderweapons will make sure the dastardly Huns lose while gallant little Belgium… oh sorry, wrong war. Just chuck in some reference (any reference) to Hitler and Napoleon for verisimilitude, there you go, job done…
Meanwhile, in the real world…
Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Townsend
M. Gatt
1 year ago
General Armchair has spoken. I love how these ‘experts’ know exactly what is going on in Putins mind. Too funny. ( Will Unherd publish the pro-Russian analysis? Although the top comment does a rather realistic job of it)
M. Gatt
1 year ago
General Armchair has spoken. I love how these ‘experts’ know exactly what is going on in Putins mind. Too funny. ( Will Unherd publish the pro-Russian analysis? Although the top comment does a rather realistic job of it)
Chris W
1 year ago
Another theory. Putin has learnt from past errors by Napoleon and H*tl*r and does not want to support an army in the field during winter. Meanwhile, that is exactly what the Ukranians have to do. It makes a second offensive in the spring a lot more successful
Another word for “Ukrainian spring” is “mud”.
Luttwak brings up Operation Uranus*. Which didn’t wait for the Mud Season.
And how is Ukraine and not Russia going to be “support[ing] an army in the field during winter”, again?
Off topic: Why he asserts that the 6th Army only “almost” reached the Don is a bit inexplicable.
Another word for “Ukrainian spring” is “mud”.
Luttwak brings up Operation Uranus*. Which didn’t wait for the Mud Season.
And how is Ukraine and not Russia going to be “support[ing] an army in the field during winter”, again?
Off topic: Why he asserts that the 6th Army only “almost” reached the Don is a bit inexplicable.
Chris W
1 year ago
Another theory. Putin has learnt from past errors by Napoleon and H*tl*r and does not want to support an army in the field during winter. Meanwhile, that is exactly what the Ukranians have to do. It makes a second offensive in the spring a lot more successful
martin logan
1 year ago
Many below ignore the most salient fact about this war: Zelensky has always been the figure most willing to compromise with Russia. Indeed, it was the Russophones (who now feel betrayed) who brought him to power.
So, the only coherent choices in Ukraine are:
1) Zelensky remains in power and continues to prosecute the war;
2) Zelensky falls, and a more hawkish regime takes his place.
You may pray that the US or the West somehow loses its resolve. Or that Putin attacks from Belarus. But even in the worst case scenario (or best, if you’re Russian), that just means a guerrilla war for years inside Ukraine. Russia couldn’t even subdue half of Kherson, much less most of the country.
There will always be a hostile Ukraine on Russia’s borders. And it all started when Putin tried to corral it into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union.
Should have left it a neutral border state, as it was before 2014.
After the Russian Bolsheviks destroyed Ukraine’s independence in the early 1920s, Ukrainian guerrillas continued fighting them for years.
martin logan
1 year ago
Many below ignore the most salient fact about this war: Zelensky has always been the figure most willing to compromise with Russia. Indeed, it was the Russophones (who now feel betrayed) who brought him to power.
So, the only coherent choices in Ukraine are:
1) Zelensky remains in power and continues to prosecute the war;
2) Zelensky falls, and a more hawkish regime takes his place.
You may pray that the US or the West somehow loses its resolve. Or that Putin attacks from Belarus. But even in the worst case scenario (or best, if you’re Russian), that just means a guerrilla war for years inside Ukraine. Russia couldn’t even subdue half of Kherson, much less most of the country.
There will always be a hostile Ukraine on Russia’s borders. And it all started when Putin tried to corral it into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union.
Should have left it a neutral border state, as it was before 2014.
Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Richard Calhoun
1 year ago
The critical difference is the weapons and still more and better could and will be sent to Ukraine from the West
The West cannot afford to let Russia prevail in Ukraine and Russia simply hasn’t the firepower to win … drafting in the infantry isn’t going to cut it … they will be sitting targets
How exactly do you define winning? The Russians only have to hold Donbass and Crimea. Ukraine has to drive them out of these territories back into Russia……..and keep them there.
When you can’t prevent something it is irrelevant to assert that you cannot afford to let it happen.
More weapons being sent will not grow new Ukrainian soldiers on trees. Absent home front collapse the much larger entity will win a war of attrition. That the Ukraine war is a special case where this normally iron law does not apply is non-obvious.
The war between the Soviets and Poland in 1920 does not support your thesis. Poland drove the Soviets out and they were only able to return after the German invasion in 1939.
The war between the Soviets and Poland in 1920 does not support your thesis. Poland drove the Soviets out and they were only able to return after the German invasion in 1939.
How exactly do you define winning? The Russians only have to hold Donbass and Crimea. Ukraine has to drive them out of these territories back into Russia……..and keep them there.
When you can’t prevent something it is irrelevant to assert that you cannot afford to let it happen.
More weapons being sent will not grow new Ukrainian soldiers on trees. Absent home front collapse the much larger entity will win a war of attrition. That the Ukraine war is a special case where this normally iron law does not apply is non-obvious.
Richard Calhoun
1 year ago
The critical difference is the weapons and still more and better could and will be sent to Ukraine from the West
The West cannot afford to let Russia prevail in Ukraine and Russia simply hasn’t the firepower to win … drafting in the infantry isn’t going to cut it … they will be sitting targets
Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Calhoun
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
The Russians fighting Ukraine today are far different from those who took on the German army in WW2. Those stalwarts were swollen with hatred for the atrocities committed by the enemy, who openly saw them as sub-human. Nothing deterred them in their fury. and if it had been political officers with machine guns followed to make sure they kept at it. The modern-day conscripts are unmotivated to say the least, many of them plucked off the streets and workplace and wanting nothing better than to be left alone. The skull-like figure of an obviously dying man is hardly motivational. Russians may be dumb but they are not stupid about self-survival.
Putting aside the fact that the Donbas is populated by Russians who had been under attack by the Kiev regime since 2008 your understanding of why armies fight is completely ahistorical. Someone immediately above brings up WW1, so I will take that as my example. The conscript army of the Kaiser fought with great effect in Belgium for four years until the British blockade of their homeland became unendurable. In the framework you propose how was this possible?
Putting aside the fact that the Donbas is populated by Russians who had been under attack by the Kiev regime since 2008 your understanding of why armies fight is completely ahistorical. Someone immediately above brings up WW1, so I will take that as my example. The conscript army of the Kaiser fought with great effect in Belgium for four years until the British blockade of their homeland became unendurable. In the framework you propose how was this possible?
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
The Russians fighting Ukraine today are far different from those who took on the German army in WW2. Those stalwarts were swollen with hatred for the atrocities committed by the enemy, who openly saw them as sub-human. Nothing deterred them in their fury. and if it had been political officers with machine guns followed to make sure they kept at it. The modern-day conscripts are unmotivated to say the least, many of them plucked off the streets and workplace and wanting nothing better than to be left alone. The skull-like figure of an obviously dying man is hardly motivational. Russians may be dumb but they are not stupid about self-survival.
Tony Sandy
1 year ago
Why did Hitler lose the second world war? Because like Putin he had no idea about military leadership but still more than the former. If Putin is fantasizing of a counter offensive, based on dreams of the second world war, he is severely out of touch with reality. That he promoted people based upon favouritism rather than ability, shows again his hopelessness as a military leader. The past is a memory, not present reality and if he carries on this way, ignoring the truth, then god help what’s left of the Russian army
Hitler lost WW2 because he had insufficient resources to win it. That is not remotely Putin’s situation vis-a-vis Kiev.
Tony Sandy
1 year ago
Why did Hitler lose the second world war? Because like Putin he had no idea about military leadership but still more than the former. If Putin is fantasizing of a counter offensive, based on dreams of the second world war, he is severely out of touch with reality. That he promoted people based upon favouritism rather than ability, shows again his hopelessness as a military leader. The past is a memory, not present reality and if he carries on this way, ignoring the truth, then god help what’s left of the Russian army
Alan Hawkes
1 year ago
How different from Prof Luttwak’s article of November 1st.
I have a vague memory of Luttwak being wrong about a lot of things in the past. No one is right all of the time, but it seemed he struck out more often than the average military and strategic analyist.
I have a vague memory of Luttwak being wrong about a lot of things in the past. No one is right all of the time, but it seemed he struck out more often than the average military and strategic analyist.
Alan Hawkes
1 year ago
How different from Prof Luttwak’s article of November 1st.
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
“This is what happens when a Great Power attacks a smaller one …” The details supplied in this piece do NOT support the Great Power designation. Unless, of course, it is based on the Russian Federation’s innumerable square miles of mostly worthless land.
If Russia doesn’t meet your definition of “Great Power” than which countries do?
That the EU will only contemplate proxy involvement is more persuasive than any details you imagine into this article. Contrast that with, say, the war against Milošević‘s Serbia .
I suspect that people’s ideas of what makes a Great Power will vary but, as I said, merely controlling a lot of marginal land won’t do, and owning a bit less would not disqualify other candidates, depending on their other advantages. European Great Powers in their colonial days were not large by today’s standards, and were often much smaller in size and population than their colonies, but they had greater technical skills, and more effective fleets and militaries. And while the size of a country’s territory is not unimportant, more crucial would be the shape of that territory — whether it is defensible or not — along with its agricultural productivity, and whether it contains minerals and fuels; equally crucial would be that country’s industrial productive capacity, a high level of technical expertise, and whether it has an effective military capable of operating world-wide. Do any candidates come to mind?
I suspect that people’s ideas of what makes a Great Power will vary but, as I said, merely controlling a lot of marginal land won’t do, and owning a bit less would not disqualify other candidates, depending on their other advantages. European Great Powers in their colonial days were not large by today’s standards, and were often much smaller in size and population than their colonies, but they had greater technical skills, and more effective fleets and militaries. And while the size of a country’s territory is not unimportant, more crucial would be the shape of that territory — whether it is defensible or not — along with its agricultural productivity, and whether it contains minerals and fuels; equally crucial would be that country’s industrial productive capacity, a high level of technical expertise, and whether it has an effective military capable of operating world-wide. Do any candidates come to mind?
If Russia doesn’t meet your definition of “Great Power” than which countries do?
That the EU will only contemplate proxy involvement is more persuasive than any details you imagine into this article. Contrast that with, say, the war against Milošević‘s Serbia .
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
“This is what happens when a Great Power attacks a smaller one …” The details supplied in this piece do NOT support the Great Power designation. Unless, of course, it is based on the Russian Federation’s innumerable square miles of mostly worthless land.
Tom SteChatte
1 year ago
The author could be right, but his take seems too obvious. Putin would have to be extraordinarily stupid in the author’s scenario, and he just doesn’t seem stupid to me. I continue to suspect that Putin started and is deliberately dragging out the war because it benefits him economically to do so–so far anyway. He seems to have learned Quagmire Ops from the best: the CIA! Anyway, I agree that the world will very soon find out what is really going on. The effect of a severe or mild winter will make all the difference. Putin cannot bleed the US and NATO to fiscal capitulation if energy prices don’t skyrocket. The battlefield is just a backdrop; it must be or again, Putin is a moron as a tactician. But I must believe Put8n knows Ukraine is not a viable country or military, and that its so-called “precision artillery” is being piloted by 20-yr-olds with joysticks who work 10 miles from my house (FACT). Putin’s circa 1990s military isn’t great either, yet he is closer than ever to beating the Great West because it refuses to admit it is fighting him–while pouring 100 times the funds to do so directly and only achieve a stalemate. The potato-faced Slav civilians, as always, are treated like less than nothing to the warring factions.
Another psychotic comment with no basis in reality. Fiscal capitulation by the West is a pipe dream inside of a pipe dream. Putin “closer than ever to beating the Great West”???? Perhaps on planet Zog where you live.
Another psychotic comment with no basis in reality. Fiscal capitulation by the West is a pipe dream inside of a pipe dream. Putin “closer than ever to beating the Great West”???? Perhaps on planet Zog where you live.
Tom SteChatte
1 year ago
The author could be right, but his take seems too obvious. Putin would have to be extraordinarily stupid in the author’s scenario, and he just doesn’t seem stupid to me. I continue to suspect that Putin started and is deliberately dragging out the war because it benefits him economically to do so–so far anyway. He seems to have learned Quagmire Ops from the best: the CIA! Anyway, I agree that the world will very soon find out what is really going on. The effect of a severe or mild winter will make all the difference. Putin cannot bleed the US and NATO to fiscal capitulation if energy prices don’t skyrocket. The battlefield is just a backdrop; it must be or again, Putin is a moron as a tactician. But I must believe Put8n knows Ukraine is not a viable country or military, and that its so-called “precision artillery” is being piloted by 20-yr-olds with joysticks who work 10 miles from my house (FACT). Putin’s circa 1990s military isn’t great either, yet he is closer than ever to beating the Great West because it refuses to admit it is fighting him–while pouring 100 times the funds to do so directly and only achieve a stalemate. The potato-faced Slav civilians, as always, are treated like less than nothing to the warring factions.
martin logan
1 year ago
The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated. Meanwhile, Ukraine gets ever greater amounts of winterize kit to continue fighting over the cold months.
As Mick Ryan notes, Ukraine’s is a “corrosion strategy,” degrading Russian forces not in one single operation, but over weeks and months. Rather like the North Vietnamese or the Taliban.
Ukraine now has the capacity to isolate Putin’s front lines from resupply. Russia forces will soon be dying from cold and hunger. Not a very sound basis for defending any front line. The line will probably break long before the new units Putin is training in the rear ever get into combat.
Then the question will be whether he can hold the Kerch peninsula–or his place in the Kremlin.
Sorry, I’ve been foolishly following both sides in the war, and looking at the map each day.
But thanks for offering no alternate evidence.
It is always appreciated!
Sorry, I’ve been foolishly following both sides in the war, and looking at the map each day.
But thanks for offering no alternate evidence.
It is always appreciated!
“The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated.”
You have a vivid imagination unconnected to any semblance of reality.
martin logan
1 year ago
The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated. Meanwhile, Ukraine gets ever greater amounts of winterize kit to continue fighting over the cold months.
As Mick Ryan notes, Ukraine’s is a “corrosion strategy,” degrading Russian forces not in one single operation, but over weeks and months. Rather like the North Vietnamese or the Taliban.
Ukraine now has the capacity to isolate Putin’s front lines from resupply. Russia forces will soon be dying from cold and hunger. Not a very sound basis for defending any front line. The line will probably break long before the new units Putin is training in the rear ever get into combat.
Then the question will be whether he can hold the Kerch peninsula–or his place in the Kremlin.
Jonathan Anthony
1 year ago
The continuing denial of the very existence of neo-nazi forces within the Ukrainian military remains one of the most damaging elements to the pro-Ukraine corporate MSM’s credibility. It is now accepted by academics on both sides that the snipers that murdered both police and protestors at the Maidan protests in 2014 were Neo-nazi opposition security forces and not Russian agents. The likes of Azov and other nazi nationalist forces, (set up and funded by Zelensky’s backer, Igor Kolomoisky) whilst having as little as two percent support in Ukraine as a whole, or any parliamentary representation, do have elements in control and influence in the security apparatus.
In April, Reuters briefly reported (before being censored) that there were over 100,000 nazis in the Ukraine military. No wonder Ukraine threw western news agencies like CNN and Sky out of Kherson post-the Russian withdrawal, as footage of soldiers and citizens giving nazi salutes emerged, along with numerous pictures of Ukrainian soldiers sporting nazi imagery. These people have not only been killing their own people, but tried, and failed, to kill Polish allies over a difference in tactics. (The Polish soldiers killed them)
Even the Telegraph’s reporter tweeted that Ukraine needs to ‘deal with this’ as it appeared to support Putin’s narrative (i.e. verified the fact that nazis in the Donbass were justifiable targets for elimination). Worse, it now appears clear that these nazi elements literally have a gun to the head of Zelensky and hold the power in Ukraine to reject any notion of negotiation, let alone peace. Worse still, NATO is committed to endlessly funding and arming these forces without auditing or accountability in Biden’s hopeless state department back in DC.
Talk about an inconvenient truth for those backing Ukraine at all costs…
Jonathan Anthony
1 year ago
The continuing denial of the very existence of neo-nazi forces within the Ukrainian military remains one of the most damaging elements to the pro-Ukraine corporate MSM’s credibility. It is now accepted by academics on both sides that the snipers that murdered both police and protestors at the Maidan protests in 2014 were Neo-nazi opposition security forces and not Russian agents. The likes of Azov and other nazi nationalist forces, (set up and funded by Zelensky’s backer, Igor Kolomoisky) whilst having as little as two percent support in Ukraine as a whole, or any parliamentary representation, do have elements in control and influence in the security apparatus.
In April, Reuters briefly reported (before being censored) that there were over 100,000 nazis in the Ukraine military. No wonder Ukraine threw western news agencies like CNN and Sky out of Kherson post-the Russian withdrawal, as footage of soldiers and citizens giving nazi salutes emerged, along with numerous pictures of Ukrainian soldiers sporting nazi imagery. These people have not only been killing their own people, but tried, and failed, to kill Polish allies over a difference in tactics. (The Polish soldiers killed them)
Even the Telegraph’s reporter tweeted that Ukraine needs to ‘deal with this’ as it appeared to support Putin’s narrative (i.e. verified the fact that nazis in the Donbass were justifiable targets for elimination). Worse, it now appears clear that these nazi elements literally have a gun to the head of Zelensky and hold the power in Ukraine to reject any notion of negotiation, let alone peace. Worse still, NATO is committed to endlessly funding and arming these forces without auditing or accountability in Biden’s hopeless state department back in DC.
Talk about an inconvenient truth for those backing Ukraine at all costs…
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
How unusual to find an Western journalist who actually knows something about military tactics and battel history. Great article, and as you say, we shall soon see whether the predictions are correct.
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
How unusual to find an Western journalist who actually knows something about military tactics and battel history. Great article, and as you say, we shall soon see whether the predictions are correct.
rk syrus
1 year ago
Here’s a question: which country is two or three missile salvos away from crashing 100% of the other country’s power grid? Probably that country will win the war without having to invade; Ukraine’s mayors are already asking 8-10 million people to find alternative accommodation because there will be no electricity in Ukraine. Having no electricity when 90% of your trains need it to function sucks balls.
Also how have NATO’s wonder weapons been performing? What is the hit ratio of the vaunted Javelin ATGM? How are those German howitzers performing? What about million dollar anti-missile defenses against $20,000 Iranian suicide drones, I bet that’s on its way too any day now eh?
NATO is going to suck the big one in the former Ukraine and has only itself to blame.
rk syrus
1 year ago
Here’s a question: which country is two or three missile salvos away from crashing 100% of the other country’s power grid? Probably that country will win the war without having to invade; Ukraine’s mayors are already asking 8-10 million people to find alternative accommodation because there will be no electricity in Ukraine. Having no electricity when 90% of your trains need it to function sucks balls.
Also how have NATO’s wonder weapons been performing? What is the hit ratio of the vaunted Javelin ATGM? How are those German howitzers performing? What about million dollar anti-missile defenses against $20,000 Iranian suicide drones, I bet that’s on its way too any day now eh?
NATO is going to suck the big one in the former Ukraine and has only itself to blame.
I agree with the author that there is still cause for pessimism, despite recent Ukrainian military victories but I don’t see the threat he outlines as being a plausible one.
The Ukrainian victories in Kharkiv and Kherson were both morally and strategically important, the former removed the threat of a northern front opening up on the Donbas whilst the latter likely means that Odessa will remain in Ukrainian hands, assuring the country will not become land locked and remain a viable economy.
However, for the third successive time, Russia, whilst enduring a humiliating defeats, were able to successful withdraw its troops without any evidence of encirclement or mass surrender occurring. What is more, the US is now estimating Russian and Ukrainian casualties to be at parity now, back in the summer, the ratio was believed to be two to one to the Ukraines advantage. Whilst this should be expected, as those on the offensive frequently take more casualties than the defenders, it shows that Russia has been able to mount an effective defence, particularly in Kherson where Russian military bloggers reports of heavy Ukraine casualties appear to have been vindicated.
The fresh troops Russia is bringing to the war should be a concern. They have military training and in truth will be no worse that the majority of troops Ukraine has been able to muster to great effect. I cannot, however, see them being launch on an offensive from Belarus to cut Ukrainian supply lines for the following reasons.
The Ukrainian Belarusian border is remote, marshy and heavily forested. The Northern front on Kyiv was an Ardennes like offensive, attacking through unfavourable terrain to maximise the element of surprise. We saw that once opposed, the whole offensive ground to a halt. In dense woodland terrain, there are few available axis of advance, once one has been shut down it can be next to impossible to by pass defensive positions or bring fresh troops up to assault, so difficult is manoeuvre.
The other critical issue Russia would face is that US surveillance and intelligence capabilities are so great that they are unable mount any large scale offensive with any element of surprise, which I expect is largely why they attacked on such a broad front at the outset of the war, hoping to over stretch Ukraines military, rather than adopting the more orthodox approach of attacking on a single concentrated front, where the defender would usually be forced to guess the exact point the attack would fall.
Finally, the main artery that runs from Liviv to Kyiv can be bypassed further south. It would certainly be disruptive if this route was closed down but to stop supplies entirely, the offensive would have to penetrate several hundred kilometres into Ukraine and then hold that territory be held against counter offensives, I don’t see this happening with the resources Russia has.
Where I do think there is cause for concern is not that Russia will use its fresh troops to bring the war to a rapid conclusion but the opposite, that will use them to drag the war out and win the battle of attrition, both with Ukraine and the West.
Fresh troops will make further Ukrainian offensive far more difficult. Both Kharkiv and Kherson exploited either a very large numerical imbalance or a geographic advantage; trying to supply an extended front over a major water way with heavy interdiction taking place. Those conditions will be difficult to replicate (though I have heard rumblings of Crimea being very difficult to keep supplied).
Where the Russian army has had success, is where it’s been able to fix its opponent and bring its fire superiority to bare, which it still retains, despite the Ukrainian acquirement of high precision western combat systems. These are exactly the conditions the Russian army now finds itself with in the Donbas.
Strategic withdrawal is not an option for Ukrainian forces, they cannot cede this land to the Russian so are forced to abandon the war of manoeuvre they have been successfully applying and stand and face the Russian artillery. So far the fighting in Donbas indicates that the Russians are able to inflict significant casualties in this scenario, whilst lacking the infantry to take and hold ground at anything beyond a crawl. This is likely to change with the arrival of the reinforcements.
Both sides are stuck with sunk costs which make any exit extremely difficult now. Russia will not seek peace till they have taken the Donbas, Ukraine will not make peace off the back of losing it. Unfortunately, unless Russian moral collapses, (which is a possibility) a protracted conflict is likely in their favour. Ukraines infrastructure is being badly degraded and Russia is so far withstanding western sanctions, whist causing real pain to the European economy.
Another year of sky high energy and food prices could test western resolve to its limits. Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly. The result is a death spiral for all involved, that becomes more costly the longer it goes on.
The danger is not that Russia will try end this war suddenly. It’s that it’s willing to keep it going indefinitely.
Hopefully Ukraine can rotate a division to the West to be trained for 6 months. I’m not certain they can do that, but I would hope so.
A division or two trained to full NATO standards would be a fine thing to have.
Oh, and will someone give them Tranche One Typhoon and Leopards*? The better their equipment, the better a chance they will have at winning.
*The logistics trail may not be as bad for this tank as people are saying, according to some sources.
This is probably the best analysis of this I’ve seen in a long while.
Yes really good, informed comment. I’d add that Russian forces lack quality NCOs (basically a tier of Sergeants) that provide unit leadership, initiative and ‘go forward’. Those they had probably decimated by the fighting to date. You can’t easily train this culture when you’ve not had it in depth in the first place.
So it does feel a long war and potential stalemate where we are heading. The longer range Himar missiles will give Ukraine the ability to strike further behind Russian lines and damage their resupply but without more armoured force they can’t roll up the Russian fixed positions.
The country is so vast as well, and often overlooked. Huge distances for logistics. And that reduces strike force. One properly armoured Division nowhere near enough given the geography.
What might change this? Been alot of surprises so far so we shouldn’t discount more to come. Putin Praetorian guard aren’t about to replace him but you just wonder if the Russian people beginning to stir and if the forced mobilisations and gradual sanctions ‘bite’ might become more a factor than to date. Look at what’s happened suddenly in Iran. But perhaps not til mid next year.
Thus we’ve got to stay the course and give Ukraine all the help we can. We help them get to the point Putin seeks a deal and then we help Zelensky compromise by providing longer term security guarantees
Great comment and accurate. I frankly think that your military analysis of the situation shows far more depth and insight than the author’s in significantly less space. Putin would be foolish to do anything other than exactly what you suggest, but then who knows what’s in that man’s head.
“Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly.”
I don’t believe the US would hesitate for a moment to stab their allies in the back if it suited US interests. They will come up with some form of fabricated justification which makes it appear less blatant (relieve Europe’s economic suffering, a sudden “discovery” that a good portion of the weaponry they are sending is ending up on the black market instead of the battlefield etc). But for now the rich pickings for the MIC in fighting a proxy war make your scenario much more probable.
Refreshingly realistic. Why it has been so difficult to find this sort of balanced, informed reporting in the likes of The Times and Telegraph is proof that the MSM in this country – as in many others – is simply not fit for purpose. Calling Russian regrouping from Kharkiv and Kherson as victories, as is required as editorial style in the UK MSM, omits the fact they are willing to surrender territory to minimise losses and live to fight another day. This is not a ‘victory’ in the truest sense of the word. And with Ukraine at night resembling North Korea, credible reporting on the continued Russian threat is all that’s worth reading.
Hopefully Ukraine can rotate a division to the West to be trained for 6 months. I’m not certain they can do that, but I would hope so.
A division or two trained to full NATO standards would be a fine thing to have.
Oh, and will someone give them Tranche One Typhoon and Leopards*? The better their equipment, the better a chance they will have at winning.
*The logistics trail may not be as bad for this tank as people are saying, according to some sources.
This is probably the best analysis of this I’ve seen in a long while.
Yes really good, informed comment. I’d add that Russian forces lack quality NCOs (basically a tier of Sergeants) that provide unit leadership, initiative and ‘go forward’. Those they had probably decimated by the fighting to date. You can’t easily train this culture when you’ve not had it in depth in the first place.
So it does feel a long war and potential stalemate where we are heading. The longer range Himar missiles will give Ukraine the ability to strike further behind Russian lines and damage their resupply but without more armoured force they can’t roll up the Russian fixed positions.
The country is so vast as well, and often overlooked. Huge distances for logistics. And that reduces strike force. One properly armoured Division nowhere near enough given the geography.
What might change this? Been alot of surprises so far so we shouldn’t discount more to come. Putin Praetorian guard aren’t about to replace him but you just wonder if the Russian people beginning to stir and if the forced mobilisations and gradual sanctions ‘bite’ might become more a factor than to date. Look at what’s happened suddenly in Iran. But perhaps not til mid next year.
Thus we’ve got to stay the course and give Ukraine all the help we can. We help them get to the point Putin seeks a deal and then we help Zelensky compromise by providing longer term security guarantees
Great comment and accurate. I frankly think that your military analysis of the situation shows far more depth and insight than the author’s in significantly less space. Putin would be foolish to do anything other than exactly what you suggest, but then who knows what’s in that man’s head.
“Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly.”
I don’t believe the US would hesitate for a moment to stab their allies in the back if it suited US interests. They will come up with some form of fabricated justification which makes it appear less blatant (relieve Europe’s economic suffering, a sudden “discovery” that a good portion of the weaponry they are sending is ending up on the black market instead of the battlefield etc). But for now the rich pickings for the MIC in fighting a proxy war make your scenario much more probable.
Refreshingly realistic. Why it has been so difficult to find this sort of balanced, informed reporting in the likes of The Times and Telegraph is proof that the MSM in this country – as in many others – is simply not fit for purpose. Calling Russian regrouping from Kharkiv and Kherson as victories, as is required as editorial style in the UK MSM, omits the fact they are willing to surrender territory to minimise losses and live to fight another day. This is not a ‘victory’ in the truest sense of the word. And with Ukraine at night resembling North Korea, credible reporting on the continued Russian threat is all that’s worth reading.
I agree with the author that there is still cause for pessimism, despite recent Ukrainian military victories but I don’t see the threat he outlines as being a plausible one.
The Ukrainian victories in Kharkiv and Kherson were both morally and strategically important, the former removed the threat of a northern front opening up on the Donbas whilst the latter likely means that Odessa will remain in Ukrainian hands, assuring the country will not become land locked and remain a viable economy.
However, for the third successive time, Russia, whilst enduring a humiliating defeats, were able to successful withdraw its troops without any evidence of encirclement or mass surrender occurring. What is more, the US is now estimating Russian and Ukrainian casualties to be at parity now, back in the summer, the ratio was believed to be two to one to the Ukraines advantage. Whilst this should be expected, as those on the offensive frequently take more casualties than the defenders, it shows that Russia has been able to mount an effective defence, particularly in Kherson where Russian military bloggers reports of heavy Ukraine casualties appear to have been vindicated.
The fresh troops Russia is bringing to the war should be a concern. They have military training and in truth will be no worse that the majority of troops Ukraine has been able to muster to great effect. I cannot, however, see them being launch on an offensive from Belarus to cut Ukrainian supply lines for the following reasons.
The Ukrainian Belarusian border is remote, marshy and heavily forested. The Northern front on Kyiv was an Ardennes like offensive, attacking through unfavourable terrain to maximise the element of surprise. We saw that once opposed, the whole offensive ground to a halt. In dense woodland terrain, there are few available axis of advance, once one has been shut down it can be next to impossible to by pass defensive positions or bring fresh troops up to assault, so difficult is manoeuvre.
The other critical issue Russia would face is that US surveillance and intelligence capabilities are so great that they are unable mount any large scale offensive with any element of surprise, which I expect is largely why they attacked on such a broad front at the outset of the war, hoping to over stretch Ukraines military, rather than adopting the more orthodox approach of attacking on a single concentrated front, where the defender would usually be forced to guess the exact point the attack would fall.
Finally, the main artery that runs from Liviv to Kyiv can be bypassed further south. It would certainly be disruptive if this route was closed down but to stop supplies entirely, the offensive would have to penetrate several hundred kilometres into Ukraine and then hold that territory be held against counter offensives, I don’t see this happening with the resources Russia has.
Where I do think there is cause for concern is not that Russia will use its fresh troops to bring the war to a rapid conclusion but the opposite, that will use them to drag the war out and win the battle of attrition, both with Ukraine and the West.
Fresh troops will make further Ukrainian offensive far more difficult. Both Kharkiv and Kherson exploited either a very large numerical imbalance or a geographic advantage; trying to supply an extended front over a major water way with heavy interdiction taking place. Those conditions will be difficult to replicate (though I have heard rumblings of Crimea being very difficult to keep supplied).
Where the Russian army has had success, is where it’s been able to fix its opponent and bring its fire superiority to bare, which it still retains, despite the Ukrainian acquirement of high precision western combat systems. These are exactly the conditions the Russian army now finds itself with in the Donbas.
Strategic withdrawal is not an option for Ukrainian forces, they cannot cede this land to the Russian so are forced to abandon the war of manoeuvre they have been successfully applying and stand and face the Russian artillery. So far the fighting in Donbas indicates that the Russians are able to inflict significant casualties in this scenario, whilst lacking the infantry to take and hold ground at anything beyond a crawl. This is likely to change with the arrival of the reinforcements.
Both sides are stuck with sunk costs which make any exit extremely difficult now. Russia will not seek peace till they have taken the Donbas, Ukraine will not make peace off the back of losing it. Unfortunately, unless Russian moral collapses, (which is a possibility) a protracted conflict is likely in their favour. Ukraines infrastructure is being badly degraded and Russia is so far withstanding western sanctions, whist causing real pain to the European economy.
Another year of sky high energy and food prices could test western resolve to its limits. Ukraine’s forces will not down their weapons at western governments behest, nor will western governments dare to stab their allies in the back so blatantly. The result is a death spiral for all involved, that becomes more costly the longer it goes on.
The danger is not that Russia will try end this war suddenly. It’s that it’s willing to keep it going indefinitely.
I find it hard to believe Russia is capable of launching an attack that could even come within 100 miles of cutting off Kyiv. The border with Belarus is rough and swampy country with no major north south highways, and few secondary roads. The Russians failed at this sort of attack when their army was fresh, and the UAF was unprepared. Now the Russian regular army has been gutted, and the UAF has 750,000 troops in the field.
The Russian can’t possibly have enough officer for 1/10th of their Mobiks, and are running out ancient equipment to replace losses. A mob of disorganized, unmotivated rifleman, with minimal officers, and 1970’s equipment isn’t going to launch a deep strike, combined arms offensive.
Good points.
Can’t post, for some reason, only reply:
Good article too. But why would a (soon-to-be) victorious Russia accept 1) an independent Ukraine? 2) a plebiscite in Luhansk and Donetsk under conditions that they do nto themselves control?
Russia is losing not winning and as the West continues to ship in armaments and even more deadly armaments the Russians are going to suffer greatly.
Someone in the Kremlin needs to stop this
Maybe during winter there’s enough ground freezing to make the Belarus invasion achievable. The Russians, and probably the author, would know more about it than I would. Even if that’s true, a grand counteroffensive under the conditions you mentioned would be a dubious prospect. In warfare, it is always easier to defend than to attack. Thinking strategically, Russia’s best bet is to dig in and establish sound defensive positions along their entire front, gaining experience for their conscripts while hopefully inflicting higher casualties on the attacking Ukrainians. Make the Ukrainians suffer a cold and dark winter that will drain civilian morale and push Zelensky into negotiating an end to the war, while America with its critically short attention span starts to lose interest and politicians start talking about ‘forever’ wars to test the waters for the 2024 campaign. The enthusiasm for the Ukraine war in the west will fade long before Putin’s resolve does.
I’m having the same problem as Rasmus btw. Not sure whether its a technical issue or membership level thing.
‘Can’t post, for some reason, only reply’
Had the same trouble more than once myself, sort it out unherd.
Ditto! The assumption of the article and many of the responses is that the large EU countries are still giving military support to Ukraine. I don’t think that is the case. I listened carefully to what our Prime Minister said in parliament at PMQs and it seemed to me that he focused on humanitarian and social aid.
Ditto! The assumption of the article and many of the responses is that the large EU countries are still giving military support to Ukraine. I don’t think that is the case. I listened carefully to what our Prime Minister said in parliament at PMQs and it seemed to me that he focused on humanitarian and social aid.
Russia is losing not winning and as the West continues to ship in armaments and even more deadly armaments the Russians are going to suffer greatly.
Someone in the Kremlin needs to stop this
Maybe during winter there’s enough ground freezing to make the Belarus invasion achievable. The Russians, and probably the author, would know more about it than I would. Even if that’s true, a grand counteroffensive under the conditions you mentioned would be a dubious prospect. In warfare, it is always easier to defend than to attack. Thinking strategically, Russia’s best bet is to dig in and establish sound defensive positions along their entire front, gaining experience for their conscripts while hopefully inflicting higher casualties on the attacking Ukrainians. Make the Ukrainians suffer a cold and dark winter that will drain civilian morale and push Zelensky into negotiating an end to the war, while America with its critically short attention span starts to lose interest and politicians start talking about ‘forever’ wars to test the waters for the 2024 campaign. The enthusiasm for the Ukraine war in the west will fade long before Putin’s resolve does.
I’m having the same problem as Rasmus btw. Not sure whether its a technical issue or membership level thing.
‘Can’t post, for some reason, only reply’
Had the same trouble more than once myself, sort it out unherd.
Coincidentally I have been re-reading Anthony Beevor’s classic history of Stalingrad. I can’t see the parallel with Operation Uranus holding here. In 1942 the Soviet state was willing to commit over a million troops and endure horrendous casualties – including of course thousands of their own troops killed by the NKVD if they sought to “desert”. It had Lend-Lease supplies and Allied support. What we have seen in Ukraine this year is how hollowed-out and weak the Russian military is, the culmination of decades of oligarchic corruption. It probably will engage in low-intensity warfare in occupied regions for possibly years to come, and throw in artillery when it can in a sporadic and occasionally horrific way. A better comparison may be the US in Vietnam. There, the US had to win – all the Vietnamese had to do was not lose.
Yes the analogy just doesn’t hold. For a start Russia had been invaded and was defending its own territory from a murdering war machine where the threat was existential. That provided plenty of innate motivation (reinforced with executions for those not showing sufficient attacking spirit). The same motivation doesn’t exist with invading another country and the Russian solider now knows that the Ukrainian see them as torturers and murderers so the motivational advantage and existential threat is much the other way.
Yes the analogy just doesn’t hold. For a start Russia had been invaded and was defending its own territory from a murdering war machine where the threat was existential. That provided plenty of innate motivation (reinforced with executions for those not showing sufficient attacking spirit). The same motivation doesn’t exist with invading another country and the Russian solider now knows that the Ukrainian see them as torturers and murderers so the motivational advantage and existential threat is much the other way.
Another thing, the author refers to Russia as a great power. Well if you ignore the state of the economy, the effectiveness of their military, the quality of life of their citizens and the endemic corruption, yes you could say that Russia is a Great Power, but you’d still be wrong.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s economy. Yes, the country is huge in area but Moscow is not in control of the whole country and resistance will emerge if the poorer parts are used as continual cannon fodder providers.
I don’t know about the Russian economy but I do know that it has oil and gas which is badly needed by the EU and other countries on this side of the globe and it also has rare minerals which are needed for many modern tech appliances.
The oil and gas will come from Texas.
The rare minerals come from many other places as well.
Russia is a superfluous power.
“Superfluous” to what?
No, oil and gas is not coming from Texas. Even the US doesn’t get a surplus of oil and gas from Texas any more. And the Dems don’t like fracking or new development. That’s why Biden has been depleting strategic reserves.
And what the US can supply isn’t competitive in price with what Germany etc were getting from the Russians.
Not happening.
Seem to be doing OK so far.
The idea that economic warfare will somehow bring any country or coalition to its knees is unsupported by history.
The war will be won or lost on the battlefield, not by any “special economic operation.”
Seem to be doing OK so far.
The idea that economic warfare will somehow bring any country or coalition to its knees is unsupported by history.
The war will be won or lost on the battlefield, not by any “special economic operation.”
“Superfluous” to what?
No, oil and gas is not coming from Texas. Even the US doesn’t get a surplus of oil and gas from Texas any more. And the Dems don’t like fracking or new development. That’s why Biden has been depleting strategic reserves.
And what the US can supply isn’t competitive in price with what Germany etc were getting from the Russians.
Not happening.
The oil and gas will come from Texas.
The rare minerals come from many other places as well.
Russia is a superfluous power.
I don’t know about the Russian economy but I do know that it has oil and gas which is badly needed by the EU and other countries on this side of the globe and it also has rare minerals which are needed for many modern tech appliances.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s economy. Yes, the country is huge in area but Moscow is not in control of the whole country and resistance will emerge if the poorer parts are used as continual cannon fodder providers.
There doesn’t appear much evidence that Russia has any long-term designs on Kiev beyond strategic ends of taking the Donbass and ensuring a neutral leadership. To hark back to the initial failed assault is folly, as the OP makes out. Your figures are fanciful. If anything it is the Ukrainian army that has been ‘gutted’ whilst Russian losses appear far fewer than legacy media propagandists have been reporting. Repurposed Russian equipment is being used on both sides, as cost of retraining Ukrainian crews is prohibitive for US/NATO equipment. Russia has repurposed 1000s of T62s and T70s for reservists and to dismiss this is foolish. Production of T90s has been ramped up. Surovikin is clear, as the OP suggests, that this is a war of attrition with the intention to grind Ukraine down. No wonder the US is losing patience with Zelensky…
Good points.
Can’t post, for some reason, only reply:
Good article too. But why would a (soon-to-be) victorious Russia accept 1) an independent Ukraine? 2) a plebiscite in Luhansk and Donetsk under conditions that they do nto themselves control?
Coincidentally I have been re-reading Anthony Beevor’s classic history of Stalingrad. I can’t see the parallel with Operation Uranus holding here. In 1942 the Soviet state was willing to commit over a million troops and endure horrendous casualties – including of course thousands of their own troops killed by the NKVD if they sought to “desert”. It had Lend-Lease supplies and Allied support. What we have seen in Ukraine this year is how hollowed-out and weak the Russian military is, the culmination of decades of oligarchic corruption. It probably will engage in low-intensity warfare in occupied regions for possibly years to come, and throw in artillery when it can in a sporadic and occasionally horrific way. A better comparison may be the US in Vietnam. There, the US had to win – all the Vietnamese had to do was not lose.
Another thing, the author refers to Russia as a great power. Well if you ignore the state of the economy, the effectiveness of their military, the quality of life of their citizens and the endemic corruption, yes you could say that Russia is a Great Power, but you’d still be wrong.
There doesn’t appear much evidence that Russia has any long-term designs on Kiev beyond strategic ends of taking the Donbass and ensuring a neutral leadership. To hark back to the initial failed assault is folly, as the OP makes out. Your figures are fanciful. If anything it is the Ukrainian army that has been ‘gutted’ whilst Russian losses appear far fewer than legacy media propagandists have been reporting. Repurposed Russian equipment is being used on both sides, as cost of retraining Ukrainian crews is prohibitive for US/NATO equipment. Russia has repurposed 1000s of T62s and T70s for reservists and to dismiss this is foolish. Production of T90s has been ramped up. Surovikin is clear, as the OP suggests, that this is a war of attrition with the intention to grind Ukraine down. No wonder the US is losing patience with Zelensky…
I find it hard to believe Russia is capable of launching an attack that could even come within 100 miles of cutting off Kyiv. The border with Belarus is rough and swampy country with no major north south highways, and few secondary roads. The Russians failed at this sort of attack when their army was fresh, and the UAF was unprepared. Now the Russian regular army has been gutted, and the UAF has 750,000 troops in the field.
The Russian can’t possibly have enough officer for 1/10th of their Mobiks, and are running out ancient equipment to replace losses. A mob of disorganized, unmotivated rifleman, with minimal officers, and 1970’s equipment isn’t going to launch a deep strike, combined arms offensive.
Western Propaganda is a wonderful thing! If only it could win wars outside the imagination of its afficionadi….
So, Russia is out of tanks, out of officers, out of NCOs, has been reduced to fielding conscripts (the Ukrainians being volunteers?) ; is fighting with obsolete equipment (like the Hawk missiles the USA is sending to Ukraine(?) has suffered three “humiliating defeats” (Where? When? The march on Kiew yielded the desired result in Istanbul until Nato and BoJo stuck its oar in, whilst tactical withdrawals such as Kharkov and Kherson are hardly “humiliating” and only arguably defeats (it’s easy to win against an enemy who doesn’t fight you.) Russia has suffered “horrendous” casualties; (er, did you say Russia?) the Russian army is “hollowed out…a mob of disorganised, unmotivated riflemen, with minimal officers and 1970s equipment” (funny how they are winning, then…) but never mind, Western wonderweapons will make sure the dastardly Huns lose while gallant little Belgium… oh sorry, wrong war. Just chuck in some reference (any reference) to Hitler and Napoleon for verisimilitude, there you go, job done…
Meanwhile, in the real world…
I just voted this up and the count went down…..
then you’re nuts too.
then you’re nuts too.
Thanks – great comment.
unbelievable.
unbelievable.
You DO know the Huns lost, right?
And that the same thing happened to Hitler and Napoleon?
Read up on “Balance of Power” sometime–and about those who tried to upset it.
So, you’re accepting the analogy as valid, and promoting WWI as the model of how the West should behave.
Very convincing, that.
And the Napoleonic Wars, and WW2, and the Cold War, and…
That’s how nations always behave when they face existential threats.
Cartoonish alternatives are never adopted.
Sorry, you were born on the wrong planet…
And the Napoleonic Wars, and WW2, and the Cold War, and…
That’s how nations always behave when they face existential threats.
Cartoonish alternatives are never adopted.
Sorry, you were born on the wrong planet…
So, you’re accepting the analogy as valid, and promoting WWI as the model of how the West should behave.
Very convincing, that.
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old. The T-62 tanks they are using in the South were made in the 1960’s.
Russia is buying drones and guided missiles from Iran because sanctions make it impossible for Russia to make their own guided weapons. They can’t get or make the electronic parts.
In addition, Russian Army corruption makes their logistics situation even worse. About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition. There aren’t enough spare parts to repair all of them. In many cases, the missing parts have been stripped and sold. Some vehicles arrive without engines.
Recently mobilized Russian soldiers recieve minimal training, usually firing about 40 to 60 bullets through an AK-47 on a firing range. Many times they deploy to the front lines with only a couple of officers for 200 to 500 mobiks. Often the officers leave the mobiks on the front lines with no leaders at all. There are numerous complaints on Telgram and TickTock about bad conditions for mobiks.
Russian soldiers must buy much of their own equipment, including uniforms in some cases. Russian sources say 1.5 million uniforms that were officially on the books vanished. They were either stolen or never made.
Some Donetsk and Lugansk infantry units have been issued bolt action Mosin rifles originally designed in 1891, last made in 1979.
Supplies for the Crimea depended on the 12 mile Kerch road and rail bridges across the Kerch Strait. After a Ukrainian attack, the rail bridge can carry only very light traffic, about 16 lightly loaded trains a month instead of 4 or more heavy trains a day. Half of the road bridge is in the water. The other half can carry only cars, and not heavy trucks.
In short the Russians are screwed, and have no way to fix most of the mess for at least 2-4 years. Russia is losing, not winning.
I don’t disagree with most of this, but you say “About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition.” The first requirement for a usable tank must be mobility. If I’m correct, then how did the Russians manage to drive so many onto those flat-bed railroad cars?
I don’t disagree with most of this, but you say “About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition.” The first requirement for a usable tank must be mobility. If I’m correct, then how did the Russians manage to drive so many onto those flat-bed railroad cars?
this comment seems quite …. insane. Russia is “winning.”? Winning a war now in its 9th month that it was expected to win in a week?Is that “western propaganda” too? Seems to me that calling Kherson and Kharkov (and Kiev, remember) as anything but humiliating for the big bad country that expected to win in a week would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as this Putinoid propaganda.
I just voted this up and the count went down…..
Thanks – great comment.
You DO know the Huns lost, right?
And that the same thing happened to Hitler and Napoleon?
Read up on “Balance of Power” sometime–and about those who tried to upset it.
The Russian Army’s logistics are terrible and getting worse. For budgetary reasons, Russia shut down almost all of their massive military manufacturing, and also almost all of their military training after the USSR fell. Most of their tanks are over 20 years old. The T-62 tanks they are using in the South were made in the 1960’s.
Russia is buying drones and guided missiles from Iran because sanctions make it impossible for Russia to make their own guided weapons. They can’t get or make the electronic parts.
In addition, Russian Army corruption makes their logistics situation even worse. About 3/4 of armored vehicles shipped from storage to the front arrive in inoperable condition. There aren’t enough spare parts to repair all of them. In many cases, the missing parts have been stripped and sold. Some vehicles arrive without engines.
Recently mobilized Russian soldiers recieve minimal training, usually firing about 40 to 60 bullets through an AK-47 on a firing range. Many times they deploy to the front lines with only a couple of officers for 200 to 500 mobiks. Often the officers leave the mobiks on the front lines with no leaders at all. There are numerous complaints on Telgram and TickTock about bad conditions for mobiks.
Russian soldiers must buy much of their own equipment, including uniforms in some cases. Russian sources say 1.5 million uniforms that were officially on the books vanished. They were either stolen or never made.
Some Donetsk and Lugansk infantry units have been issued bolt action Mosin rifles originally designed in 1891, last made in 1979.
Supplies for the Crimea depended on the 12 mile Kerch road and rail bridges across the Kerch Strait. After a Ukrainian attack, the rail bridge can carry only very light traffic, about 16 lightly loaded trains a month instead of 4 or more heavy trains a day. Half of the road bridge is in the water. The other half can carry only cars, and not heavy trucks.
In short the Russians are screwed, and have no way to fix most of the mess for at least 2-4 years. Russia is losing, not winning.
this comment seems quite …. insane. Russia is “winning.”? Winning a war now in its 9th month that it was expected to win in a week?Is that “western propaganda” too? Seems to me that calling Kherson and Kharkov (and Kiev, remember) as anything but humiliating for the big bad country that expected to win in a week would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as this Putinoid propaganda.
Western Propaganda is a wonderful thing! If only it could win wars outside the imagination of its afficionadi….
So, Russia is out of tanks, out of officers, out of NCOs, has been reduced to fielding conscripts (the Ukrainians being volunteers?) ; is fighting with obsolete equipment (like the Hawk missiles the USA is sending to Ukraine(?) has suffered three “humiliating defeats” (Where? When? The march on Kiew yielded the desired result in Istanbul until Nato and BoJo stuck its oar in, whilst tactical withdrawals such as Kharkov and Kherson are hardly “humiliating” and only arguably defeats (it’s easy to win against an enemy who doesn’t fight you.) Russia has suffered “horrendous” casualties; (er, did you say Russia?) the Russian army is “hollowed out…a mob of disorganised, unmotivated riflemen, with minimal officers and 1970s equipment” (funny how they are winning, then…) but never mind, Western wonderweapons will make sure the dastardly Huns lose while gallant little Belgium… oh sorry, wrong war. Just chuck in some reference (any reference) to Hitler and Napoleon for verisimilitude, there you go, job done…
Meanwhile, in the real world…
General Armchair has spoken. I love how these ‘experts’ know exactly what is going on in Putins mind. Too funny. ( Will Unherd publish the pro-Russian analysis? Although the top comment does a rather realistic job of it)
General Armchair has spoken. I love how these ‘experts’ know exactly what is going on in Putins mind. Too funny. ( Will Unherd publish the pro-Russian analysis? Although the top comment does a rather realistic job of it)
Another theory. Putin has learnt from past errors by Napoleon and H*tl*r and does not want to support an army in the field during winter. Meanwhile, that is exactly what the Ukranians have to do. It makes a second offensive in the spring a lot more successful
Another word for “Ukrainian spring” is “mud”.
Luttwak brings up Operation Uranus*. Which didn’t wait for the Mud Season.
And how is Ukraine and not Russia going to be “support[ing] an army in the field during winter”, again?
Off topic: Why he asserts that the 6th Army only “almost” reached the Don is a bit inexplicable.
Another word for “Ukrainian spring” is “mud”.
Luttwak brings up Operation Uranus*. Which didn’t wait for the Mud Season.
And how is Ukraine and not Russia going to be “support[ing] an army in the field during winter”, again?
Off topic: Why he asserts that the 6th Army only “almost” reached the Don is a bit inexplicable.
Another theory. Putin has learnt from past errors by Napoleon and H*tl*r and does not want to support an army in the field during winter. Meanwhile, that is exactly what the Ukranians have to do. It makes a second offensive in the spring a lot more successful
Many below ignore the most salient fact about this war: Zelensky has always been the figure most willing to compromise with Russia. Indeed, it was the Russophones (who now feel betrayed) who brought him to power.
So, the only coherent choices in Ukraine are:
1) Zelensky remains in power and continues to prosecute the war;
2) Zelensky falls, and a more hawkish regime takes his place.
You may pray that the US or the West somehow loses its resolve. Or that Putin attacks from Belarus. But even in the worst case scenario (or best, if you’re Russian), that just means a guerrilla war for years inside Ukraine. Russia couldn’t even subdue half of Kherson, much less most of the country.
There will always be a hostile Ukraine on Russia’s borders. And it all started when Putin tried to corral it into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union.
Should have left it a neutral border state, as it was before 2014.
After the Russian Bolsheviks destroyed Ukraine’s independence in the early 1920s, Ukrainian guerrillas continued fighting them for years.
After the Russian Bolsheviks destroyed Ukraine’s independence in the early 1920s, Ukrainian guerrillas continued fighting them for years.
Many below ignore the most salient fact about this war: Zelensky has always been the figure most willing to compromise with Russia. Indeed, it was the Russophones (who now feel betrayed) who brought him to power.
So, the only coherent choices in Ukraine are:
1) Zelensky remains in power and continues to prosecute the war;
2) Zelensky falls, and a more hawkish regime takes his place.
You may pray that the US or the West somehow loses its resolve. Or that Putin attacks from Belarus. But even in the worst case scenario (or best, if you’re Russian), that just means a guerrilla war for years inside Ukraine. Russia couldn’t even subdue half of Kherson, much less most of the country.
There will always be a hostile Ukraine on Russia’s borders. And it all started when Putin tried to corral it into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union.
Should have left it a neutral border state, as it was before 2014.
The critical difference is the weapons and still more and better could and will be sent to Ukraine from the West
The West cannot afford to let Russia prevail in Ukraine and Russia simply hasn’t the firepower to win … drafting in the infantry isn’t going to cut it … they will be sitting targets
How exactly do you define winning? The Russians only have to hold Donbass and Crimea. Ukraine has to drive them out of these territories back into Russia……..and keep them there.
When you can’t prevent something it is irrelevant to assert that you cannot afford to let it happen.
More weapons being sent will not grow new Ukrainian soldiers on trees. Absent home front collapse the much larger entity will win a war of attrition. That the Ukraine war is a special case where this normally iron law does not apply is non-obvious.
The war between the Soviets and Poland in 1920 does not support your thesis. Poland drove the Soviets out and they were only able to return after the German invasion in 1939.
The war between the Soviets and Poland in 1920 does not support your thesis. Poland drove the Soviets out and they were only able to return after the German invasion in 1939.
How exactly do you define winning? The Russians only have to hold Donbass and Crimea. Ukraine has to drive them out of these territories back into Russia……..and keep them there.
When you can’t prevent something it is irrelevant to assert that you cannot afford to let it happen.
More weapons being sent will not grow new Ukrainian soldiers on trees. Absent home front collapse the much larger entity will win a war of attrition. That the Ukraine war is a special case where this normally iron law does not apply is non-obvious.
The critical difference is the weapons and still more and better could and will be sent to Ukraine from the West
The West cannot afford to let Russia prevail in Ukraine and Russia simply hasn’t the firepower to win … drafting in the infantry isn’t going to cut it … they will be sitting targets
The Russians fighting Ukraine today are far different from those who took on the German army in WW2. Those stalwarts were swollen with hatred for the atrocities committed by the enemy, who openly saw them as sub-human. Nothing deterred them in their fury. and if it had been political officers with machine guns followed to make sure they kept at it. The modern-day conscripts are unmotivated to say the least, many of them plucked off the streets and workplace and wanting nothing better than to be left alone. The skull-like figure of an obviously dying man is hardly motivational. Russians may be dumb but they are not stupid about self-survival.
Putting aside the fact that the Donbas is populated by Russians who had been under attack by the Kiev regime since 2008 your understanding of why armies fight is completely ahistorical. Someone immediately above brings up WW1, so I will take that as my example. The conscript army of the Kaiser fought with great effect in Belgium for four years until the British blockade of their homeland became unendurable. In the framework you propose how was this possible?
Putting aside the fact that the Donbas is populated by Russians who had been under attack by the Kiev regime since 2008 your understanding of why armies fight is completely ahistorical. Someone immediately above brings up WW1, so I will take that as my example. The conscript army of the Kaiser fought with great effect in Belgium for four years until the British blockade of their homeland became unendurable. In the framework you propose how was this possible?
The Russians fighting Ukraine today are far different from those who took on the German army in WW2. Those stalwarts were swollen with hatred for the atrocities committed by the enemy, who openly saw them as sub-human. Nothing deterred them in their fury. and if it had been political officers with machine guns followed to make sure they kept at it. The modern-day conscripts are unmotivated to say the least, many of them plucked off the streets and workplace and wanting nothing better than to be left alone. The skull-like figure of an obviously dying man is hardly motivational. Russians may be dumb but they are not stupid about self-survival.
Why did Hitler lose the second world war? Because like Putin he had no idea about military leadership but still more than the former. If Putin is fantasizing of a counter offensive, based on dreams of the second world war, he is severely out of touch with reality. That he promoted people based upon favouritism rather than ability, shows again his hopelessness as a military leader. The past is a memory, not present reality and if he carries on this way, ignoring the truth, then god help what’s left of the Russian army
Hitler lost WW2 because he had insufficient resources to win it. That is not remotely Putin’s situation vis-a-vis Kiev.
Yes, it is. Both Hitler and Putin underestimated the capabilities and resources of their adversaries.
Yes, it is. Both Hitler and Putin underestimated the capabilities and resources of their adversaries.
Hitler lost WW2 because he had insufficient resources to win it. That is not remotely Putin’s situation vis-a-vis Kiev.
Why did Hitler lose the second world war? Because like Putin he had no idea about military leadership but still more than the former. If Putin is fantasizing of a counter offensive, based on dreams of the second world war, he is severely out of touch with reality. That he promoted people based upon favouritism rather than ability, shows again his hopelessness as a military leader. The past is a memory, not present reality and if he carries on this way, ignoring the truth, then god help what’s left of the Russian army
How different from Prof Luttwak’s article of November 1st.
I have a vague memory of Luttwak being wrong about a lot of things in the past. No one is right all of the time, but it seemed he struck out more often than the average military and strategic analyist.
Your impression of the “average military and strategic analyist” is unduly generous. Mostly they’re agenda-pushing hacks.
Your impression of the “average military and strategic analyist” is unduly generous. Mostly they’re agenda-pushing hacks.
I have a vague memory of Luttwak being wrong about a lot of things in the past. No one is right all of the time, but it seemed he struck out more often than the average military and strategic analyist.
How different from Prof Luttwak’s article of November 1st.
“This is what happens when a Great Power attacks a smaller one …” The details supplied in this piece do NOT support the Great Power designation. Unless, of course, it is based on the Russian Federation’s innumerable square miles of mostly worthless land.
If Russia doesn’t meet your definition of “Great Power” than which countries do?
That the EU will only contemplate proxy involvement is more persuasive than any details you imagine into this article. Contrast that with, say, the war against Milošević‘s Serbia .
I suspect that people’s ideas of what makes a Great Power will vary but, as I said, merely controlling a lot of marginal land won’t do, and owning a bit less would not disqualify other candidates, depending on their other advantages. European Great Powers in their colonial days were not large by today’s standards, and were often much smaller in size and population than their colonies, but they had greater technical skills, and more effective fleets and militaries. And while the size of a country’s territory is not unimportant, more crucial would be the shape of that territory — whether it is defensible or not — along with its agricultural productivity, and whether it contains minerals and fuels; equally crucial would be that country’s industrial productive capacity, a high level of technical expertise, and whether it has an effective military capable of operating world-wide. Do any candidates come to mind?
I suspect that people’s ideas of what makes a Great Power will vary but, as I said, merely controlling a lot of marginal land won’t do, and owning a bit less would not disqualify other candidates, depending on their other advantages. European Great Powers in their colonial days were not large by today’s standards, and were often much smaller in size and population than their colonies, but they had greater technical skills, and more effective fleets and militaries. And while the size of a country’s territory is not unimportant, more crucial would be the shape of that territory — whether it is defensible or not — along with its agricultural productivity, and whether it contains minerals and fuels; equally crucial would be that country’s industrial productive capacity, a high level of technical expertise, and whether it has an effective military capable of operating world-wide. Do any candidates come to mind?
If Russia doesn’t meet your definition of “Great Power” than which countries do?
That the EU will only contemplate proxy involvement is more persuasive than any details you imagine into this article. Contrast that with, say, the war against Milošević‘s Serbia .
“This is what happens when a Great Power attacks a smaller one …” The details supplied in this piece do NOT support the Great Power designation. Unless, of course, it is based on the Russian Federation’s innumerable square miles of mostly worthless land.
The author could be right, but his take seems too obvious. Putin would have to be extraordinarily stupid in the author’s scenario, and he just doesn’t seem stupid to me. I continue to suspect that Putin started and is deliberately dragging out the war because it benefits him economically to do so–so far anyway. He seems to have learned Quagmire Ops from the best: the CIA! Anyway, I agree that the world will very soon find out what is really going on. The effect of a severe or mild winter will make all the difference. Putin cannot bleed the US and NATO to fiscal capitulation if energy prices don’t skyrocket. The battlefield is just a backdrop; it must be or again, Putin is a moron as a tactician. But I must believe Put8n knows Ukraine is not a viable country or military, and that its so-called “precision artillery” is being piloted by 20-yr-olds with joysticks who work 10 miles from my house (FACT). Putin’s circa 1990s military isn’t great either, yet he is closer than ever to beating the Great West because it refuses to admit it is fighting him–while pouring 100 times the funds to do so directly and only achieve a stalemate. The potato-faced Slav civilians, as always, are treated like less than nothing to the warring factions.
Another psychotic comment with no basis in reality. Fiscal capitulation by the West is a pipe dream inside of a pipe dream. Putin “closer than ever to beating the Great West”???? Perhaps on planet Zog where you live.
Another psychotic comment with no basis in reality. Fiscal capitulation by the West is a pipe dream inside of a pipe dream. Putin “closer than ever to beating the Great West”???? Perhaps on planet Zog where you live.
The author could be right, but his take seems too obvious. Putin would have to be extraordinarily stupid in the author’s scenario, and he just doesn’t seem stupid to me. I continue to suspect that Putin started and is deliberately dragging out the war because it benefits him economically to do so–so far anyway. He seems to have learned Quagmire Ops from the best: the CIA! Anyway, I agree that the world will very soon find out what is really going on. The effect of a severe or mild winter will make all the difference. Putin cannot bleed the US and NATO to fiscal capitulation if energy prices don’t skyrocket. The battlefield is just a backdrop; it must be or again, Putin is a moron as a tactician. But I must believe Put8n knows Ukraine is not a viable country or military, and that its so-called “precision artillery” is being piloted by 20-yr-olds with joysticks who work 10 miles from my house (FACT). Putin’s circa 1990s military isn’t great either, yet he is closer than ever to beating the Great West because it refuses to admit it is fighting him–while pouring 100 times the funds to do so directly and only achieve a stalemate. The potato-faced Slav civilians, as always, are treated like less than nothing to the warring factions.
The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated. Meanwhile, Ukraine gets ever greater amounts of winterize kit to continue fighting over the cold months.
As Mick Ryan notes, Ukraine’s is a “corrosion strategy,” degrading Russian forces not in one single operation, but over weeks and months. Rather like the North Vietnamese or the Taliban.
Ukraine now has the capacity to isolate Putin’s front lines from resupply. Russia forces will soon be dying from cold and hunger. Not a very sound basis for defending any front line. The line will probably break long before the new units Putin is training in the rear ever get into combat.
Then the question will be whether he can hold the Kerch peninsula–or his place in the Kremlin.
“The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated.”
You have a vivid imagination unconnected to any semblance of reality.
Sorry, I’ve been foolishly following both sides in the war, and looking at the map each day.
But thanks for offering no alternate evidence.
It is always appreciated!
Sorry, I’ve been foolishly following both sides in the war, and looking at the map each day.
But thanks for offering no alternate evidence.
It is always appreciated!
“The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated.”
You have a vivid imagination unconnected to any semblance of reality.
The problem for Putin is that every day Russian front lines are more isolated. Meanwhile, Ukraine gets ever greater amounts of winterize kit to continue fighting over the cold months.
As Mick Ryan notes, Ukraine’s is a “corrosion strategy,” degrading Russian forces not in one single operation, but over weeks and months. Rather like the North Vietnamese or the Taliban.
Ukraine now has the capacity to isolate Putin’s front lines from resupply. Russia forces will soon be dying from cold and hunger. Not a very sound basis for defending any front line. The line will probably break long before the new units Putin is training in the rear ever get into combat.
Then the question will be whether he can hold the Kerch peninsula–or his place in the Kremlin.
The continuing denial of the very existence of neo-nazi forces within the Ukrainian military remains one of the most damaging elements to the pro-Ukraine corporate MSM’s credibility. It is now accepted by academics on both sides that the snipers that murdered both police and protestors at the Maidan protests in 2014 were Neo-nazi opposition security forces and not Russian agents. The likes of Azov and other nazi nationalist forces, (set up and funded by Zelensky’s backer, Igor Kolomoisky) whilst having as little as two percent support in Ukraine as a whole, or any parliamentary representation, do have elements in control and influence in the security apparatus.
In April, Reuters briefly reported (before being censored) that there were over 100,000 nazis in the Ukraine military. No wonder Ukraine threw western news agencies like CNN and Sky out of Kherson post-the Russian withdrawal, as footage of soldiers and citizens giving nazi salutes emerged, along with numerous pictures of Ukrainian soldiers sporting nazi imagery. These people have not only been killing their own people, but tried, and failed, to kill Polish allies over a difference in tactics. (The Polish soldiers killed them)
Even the Telegraph’s reporter tweeted that Ukraine needs to ‘deal with this’ as it appeared to support Putin’s narrative (i.e. verified the fact that nazis in the Donbass were justifiable targets for elimination). Worse, it now appears clear that these nazi elements literally have a gun to the head of Zelensky and hold the power in Ukraine to reject any notion of negotiation, let alone peace. Worse still, NATO is committed to endlessly funding and arming these forces without auditing or accountability in Biden’s hopeless state department back in DC.
Talk about an inconvenient truth for those backing Ukraine at all costs…
The continuing denial of the very existence of neo-nazi forces within the Ukrainian military remains one of the most damaging elements to the pro-Ukraine corporate MSM’s credibility. It is now accepted by academics on both sides that the snipers that murdered both police and protestors at the Maidan protests in 2014 were Neo-nazi opposition security forces and not Russian agents. The likes of Azov and other nazi nationalist forces, (set up and funded by Zelensky’s backer, Igor Kolomoisky) whilst having as little as two percent support in Ukraine as a whole, or any parliamentary representation, do have elements in control and influence in the security apparatus.
In April, Reuters briefly reported (before being censored) that there were over 100,000 nazis in the Ukraine military. No wonder Ukraine threw western news agencies like CNN and Sky out of Kherson post-the Russian withdrawal, as footage of soldiers and citizens giving nazi salutes emerged, along with numerous pictures of Ukrainian soldiers sporting nazi imagery. These people have not only been killing their own people, but tried, and failed, to kill Polish allies over a difference in tactics. (The Polish soldiers killed them)
Even the Telegraph’s reporter tweeted that Ukraine needs to ‘deal with this’ as it appeared to support Putin’s narrative (i.e. verified the fact that nazis in the Donbass were justifiable targets for elimination). Worse, it now appears clear that these nazi elements literally have a gun to the head of Zelensky and hold the power in Ukraine to reject any notion of negotiation, let alone peace. Worse still, NATO is committed to endlessly funding and arming these forces without auditing or accountability in Biden’s hopeless state department back in DC.
Talk about an inconvenient truth for those backing Ukraine at all costs…
How unusual to find an Western journalist who actually knows something about military tactics and battel history. Great article, and as you say, we shall soon see whether the predictions are correct.
How unusual to find an Western journalist who actually knows something about military tactics and battel history. Great article, and as you say, we shall soon see whether the predictions are correct.
Here’s a question: which country is two or three missile salvos away from crashing 100% of the other country’s power grid? Probably that country will win the war without having to invade; Ukraine’s mayors are already asking 8-10 million people to find alternative accommodation because there will be no electricity in Ukraine. Having no electricity when 90% of your trains need it to function sucks balls.
Also how have NATO’s wonder weapons been performing? What is the hit ratio of the vaunted Javelin ATGM? How are those German howitzers performing? What about million dollar anti-missile defenses against $20,000 Iranian suicide drones, I bet that’s on its way too any day now eh?
NATO is going to suck the big one in the former Ukraine and has only itself to blame.
Here’s a question: which country is two or three missile salvos away from crashing 100% of the other country’s power grid? Probably that country will win the war without having to invade; Ukraine’s mayors are already asking 8-10 million people to find alternative accommodation because there will be no electricity in Ukraine. Having no electricity when 90% of your trains need it to function sucks balls.
Also how have NATO’s wonder weapons been performing? What is the hit ratio of the vaunted Javelin ATGM? How are those German howitzers performing? What about million dollar anti-missile defenses against $20,000 Iranian suicide drones, I bet that’s on its way too any day now eh?
NATO is going to suck the big one in the former Ukraine and has only itself to blame.