Main Edition
US
FR
April 1, 2024 - 8:00am
In recent days, the Ukrainian border city of Kharkiv has been rocked by Russian bombardment. While its residents have grown used to this over two years of war, the deployment of an innovative weapon has made Kharkiv an even more dangerous place to be. The head of the regional police noted that Russia may have used a new type of glide bomb in the assault, which he described as a “flying bomb” constituting “something between a guided aerial bomb… and a missile”.
This is unlikely to be the last time that Kharkiv finds itself under attack. Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that Russia is massing its forces to launch a spring offensive in late May or June. Kharkiv appears to be the prime target for such an assault. Last month, independent Russian news outlet Verstka quoted Kremlin officials as saying that Moscow plans to implement a “creeping mobilisation” aimed at securing 300,000 soldiers before encircling and besieging Kharkiv. Last week, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi admitted that they are preparing to fortify Kharkiv’s defences and warned that any attempt to seize Ukraine’s second city would prove “fatal” to Moscow.
Syrskyi’s confidence in Ukraine’s fortifications may well be misplaced, since the construction of the defences necessary to hold off a Russian advance has been worryingly slow. Funding for expanding and strengthening such defences was not made available until January, and work only started on 1 March. While Ukraine aims to build three lines of fortifications across 2,000 km by the end of spring, concerns persist about flimsy materials, the sluggish pace of construction and shortages of the men and mines needed to protect them. Kyiv should take these issues seriously — Russia’s impregnable defensive lines allowed it to withstand Ukraine’s counter-offensive last year.
The deficiencies of its own defences are not the only problem plaguing Ukrainian military commanders. While Kyiv suffers the frontline impact of arms shortages and delays in the supply of US weaponry, Russia has been benefiting from the deployment of highly effective glide bombs — conventional bombs fitted with wings and a guidance system.
Although Russia began using them last year, production has recently been ramped up. They proved decisive in Moscow’s February victory in the Donetsk town of Avdiivka, where Ukrainian troops reported 60-80 a day being dropped and even used to hit fleeing soldiers. Obliterating multistory buildings in a single hit, glide bombs are difficult to shoot down and capable of devastating not just Ukraine’s landscape but also its morale; with experienced soldiers complaining of the vomiting, concussion and shell shock wrought by such high-impact weaponry.
These bombs are likely to prove a key component of Russia’s coming assault — Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba noted last week that they currently form “Russia’s main advantage on the battlefield” and that Russia had dropped 700 such bombs on Ukraine between 18th and 24th March.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs the author notes, these weapons aren’t really new to this conflict – they’ve been being used for months now. Yes the RF have improved their use and (as with every one of their munitions) increased production & upgrading processes massively (most of the bombs used are ‘dumb bomb’ stock from storage).
A big factor in the mix is the general, and now almost complete, degradation of the Ukrainian air-defence systems which have allowed larger bombs to be deployed with relative safety. Heavier bombs can’t glide as far as lighter ones so the air-craft dropping them have to be closer and/higher to reach the same targets – the RF are currently testing 3 ton versions.
What is relatively new is the fact they’re being centred by the Ukrainians – and now the West – as excuses for what has been befalling them. It’s a handy distraction from the fact that they’ve missed their chance to dig new defensive lines – due to incompetence or corruption makes no difference now (probably a lot of both.
Beyond that, this is just another chapter in the book of disastrous underestimations of the Russians in this disastrous (and avoidable) war. Every single member of our upper military Establishment – Generals, Admirals, Air Vice Marshalls should be removed and forced to reapply for their current roles with everyone else from a few levels below them. High on the list of requirements for their applications should be a proper understanding of the capacities of our States and systems to support non-colonial conflicts and a proper understanding of the Russian way of war (and the Chinese too if they have one). The revolving door – to BAE, Lockheed Martin and the like – should be firmly shut and, ideally, those corporations broken up too. Likewise all the gravy-training think-tanks – the RUSIs, Brookings, Chatham Houses should go through the same process and be properly challenged on how they got this one so wrong whenever they prognosticate about anything.
I’m sure there are many perfectly reasonable criticisms you can make of the defense establishments of the West. However it is the politicians who make this decisions.
The Russians did indeed perform very poorly at the beginning of the war and perhaps that led to a complacency. However I have heard several high-out military people saying that the Russians tend to recover. I thought we got more sense from them than from the politicians.
Obviously the defense against such weapons is to eliminate the launch platforms which are inside Russia. At some point that boundary must stop being some fictional limit on defense. Ukraine must have longer range defenses. They have done well in attacking airfields inside Russia but more is needed. If the world (US, UK, Russia, Ukraine) can’t resolve this conflict, we may very well enter a larger conflict. Anybody talking?
I feel like this is the most opaque conflict in modern times – at least for me. While this was an interesting article I feel like I have no idea who is winning or losing this conflict as I hear contradictory messaging about it all the time.
Come on Peter, Russia is winning. Tragically in my opinion, but it is the case nonetheless. The West has provided a lot but not enough support for Ukraine if it wishes that country to survive; it appears to have somehow provided almost the perfect formula for a slow, grinding and very bloody Ukrainian defeat
Russia obviously having a far larger population and industrial base. It has learned from and corrected most of its early military failures, and is doing basic things well, like producing vast numbers of artillery shells, which seemingly the entire West cannot, or does not ultimately have the will to, match.
If the Western powers wish to curb their seemingly inexorable geostrategic decline, they need to wake up and start adopting a long term strategic approach, not just in military affairs. We need to actually make sacrifices and realise it’s some of the things that we obsess about are luxuries in a dangerous world. Let’s get real and realise that empty “no skin in the game” pontification do not win wars.