It was always uncertain if Russia actually has sufficient combat power to launch any sort of significant ground offensive in Ukraine. A vital question, because regardless of what pundits are saying this week about a build-up of Russian air power, the only way to win a war is to put troops on the ground. Russia can try to bomb Ukraine back to the Stone Age, the Americans thought this strategy would work in Vietnam; but it did not and won’t in Ukraine either. A simple fact of war, is that until a Russian infantryman is on a piece of ground flying their flag, that ground is still Ukrainian. On the battlefield possession is ten – tenths of the law and the bailiff’s men are the infantry.
And; this week we are seeing increasing evidence that Russia just does not have the ground combat power for offensive operations. Ben Wallace, British Defence Secretary made a statement to the BBC observing that 97% of Russia’s total land forces were already committed to Ukraine. A sobering thought because for all of this effort Russia is not making any significant progress offensively; and as a number of commentators confirmed this week NATO intelligence is not reporting any significant massing of Russian forces. Any offensive requires a large reserve that can be used to overwhelm the enemy by concentrating quickly at one point on the frontline. It seems that the small company (approximately 100 men and a dozen vehicles) and battalion sized (three companies) attacks being reported are all the Russians are able to mount.
In recent columns, we highlighted our assessment that Russia’s offensive should be seen as an ‘if’ rather than a ‘when’ and this information correlates with our assessment; that Russia has probably exhausted its combat power. More specifically, its reserves of trained infantrymen (for more detail see – Spring offensive, Russia’s quickest way to lose the war!) without whom all the artillery, aircraft and tanks in the world are useless. Putin has demonstrated that he is not willing to parley yet therefore has one option, maintaining low-level sustainable attacks that prove to the domestic political audience and to NATO that Russia is aggressively prosecuting the war and will continue to do so; again Putin is hoping that NATO will flinch first.
Putin’s next step is likely to be increasing the bombing campaign against Ukraine’s cities and civilian infra-structure; aiming to create enough suffering that NATO countries feel compelled to stop the war. Mainstream media links the reports of a build up of Russian air power near Ukraine to a planned escalation in the bombing of cities. However, drones and long-range missiles are a safer option and it is more likely that the Russian air force’s build up near Ukraine is to counter Ukrainian armour. After the capture of large amounts of Russian armour in Lyman and Kherson; Ukraine probably has more tanks than it started the war with, so even without Challenger, Leopard and Abrams tanks it has significant armoured combat power.
And; the only way guaranteed to stop large armoured offensives is with airpower. Neither Ukraine nor Russia has air superiority at this time. However, Russia has enough airpower that it could possibly force air superiority for a long enough time to block a Ukrainian armoured assault. It seems logical that this is why Russia is building up its airpower close to Ukraine. It is a threat to a Ukrainian armoured thrust. It may also be why Ukraine is increasing its calls for modern NATO fighter aircraft, not to defend its cities but to protect its armour as it advances.
In fact, the build-up of Russian airpower could be signal that Russia is concerned about an imminent Ukrainian push. The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence recently reported that Russia continues to fortify the Orikhiv-Vasylivka line that demarcates the separation between Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia and the Crimean Land Bridge between the Dnipro River and Mariupol. The Ministry also assesses that although Russia’s focus is on Donetsk and specifically Bakhmut, Russia is deploying troops both north to Luhansk and south to Zaporizhzhia because of concerns about Ukrainian offensives.
Ukraine appears to be imposing ‘simultaneity’ upon Russia, a term used in the military to describe a force being so overwhelmed with possible options and dilemmas that command paralysis sets in; and nothing happens. Does this sound like Russia in Ukraine? Fixated on Bakhmut whilst floundering to figure out where the Ukrainian attack will come, rushing troops around but without developing a clear, decisive campaign plan.
Adding to this tension is NATO’s recent discussion at the Munich Security Conference about the possibility of Russia receiving Chinese military aid. United States Vice President Kamala Harris stating that “We are also troubled that Beijing has deepened its relationship with Moscow since the war began” and NATO officials reportedly discussing concerns about the possibility of China’s relationship evolving to include lethal aid; military equipment. A concern that was echoed later by United States Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken. Since the war started, NATO’s leaders have been concerned that China is helping Russia evade sanctions and providing covert support to Putin’s regime and these fears appear to be escalating. So far, China has generally distanced itself from Russia and has served a useful and responsible political role toning down Putin’s nuclear rhetoric; and it would be sad to see this situation change.
Although, Chinese support for Russia has always been a consideration, the United States and its allies work hard to maintain a relationship with China and limit the country’s support for Russia. Recently though, an increase in Sino-American tensions adds to the possibility of China starting to supply material to Russia. Any aid is likely to be covert and therefore limited because China understands that Russia has very limited international support and publicly supporting Russia would have a negative impact on China’s international reputation. And; the reality is that nothing China can supply militarily will solve Russia’s key problem, its shortage of trained manpower. The impacts of any support from China will vary but are unlikely to do much to affect the ground campaign which is where this war will be won.
An effect of the discussion about China’s relationship with Russia is that it puts more strategic pressure on Ukraine to move quickly at the tactical level, to defeat Russia in case it gets ‘thrown a life line’. It is logical that Ukraine’s stated strategic goal Crimea is the key objective of their plans because without holding this territory Ukraine can never be safe. Crimea’s position means that if Russia holds it; Ukraine will always need to worry about blockades of its ports by the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, another ground offensive into southern Ukraine or attacks on cities by planes or missiles launched from the peninsular.
However, in order to take Crimea Russia must first attrit the Russian army enough to transfer from defence to offensive operations. And; Bakhmut is the key to this goal. In military terms, Bakhmut is a ‘fix’, an action fought to hold an enemy and make them commit resources thereby removing combat power from other areas. Ukraine is defending Bakhmut because it keeps the Russians away from larger cities like Sloviansk and provides an opportunity to ‘draw in’ Russian forces and destroy them as they assault the town’s well-developed defences. Bakhmut will evolve to become the pivot around which the next Ukrainian offensive will be launched and the options are:
- North into Luhansk; or
- South into the Crimean Land Bridge.
At this stage either option is worthy of consideration. My speculation is that the first Ukrainian thrust will be in the south, likely on an axis roughly from Vulhedar to Mariupol, avoiding the concentration of Russian forces near Melitopol and cutting the Crimean Land Bridge. It seems logical that this thrust will be sooner rather than later because this axis of advance is through relatively complex terrain in which new NATO tanks are less likely to maximise their impact on the battle, so there is no requirement to wait for their arrival and also because for Ukraine time is a consideration. Although, NATO countries are currently backing Ukraine the risk that European support will dry up always needs to be considered. And; although it may be confirmation bias recent Russian offensives in the area around Vuldehar may be spoiling attacks and on 13 February the Institute for the Study of War reported that “A prominent Kremlin-affiliated milblogger also expressed concerns over the possibility of a Ukrainian counteroffensive in southern Ukraine via western Zaporizhia Oblast in late spring to early summer.” If Ukrainian forces are available, an attack in the south could be followed later by an attack into the more open country of Luhansk spearheaded by the new NATO tanks.
However, after discussing this problem with an associate who knows much more about armoured operations their advice was that it made better tactical sense for Ukraine to wait, try to secure offensive aircover (i.e. get F16s from NATO) and to bring the new NATO vehicles into service before using them to attack in the north. Luhansk is better country for tanks and this option could allow for a catastrophic defeat of the Russian forces that would make an operation against the Crimean Land Bridge in the south later, easier. Further, my associate felt that holding the ‘shoulder’ (or the base side) of a salient near Vulhedar, close to Donetsk city would be very difficult because it is so close to a large concentration of Russian force.
In summary, it seems to be increasingly apparent that Russia’s ground combat power is culminating. The key issue being that they have too few soldiers, a situation that is unlikely to change. Even after a good discussion between observers the only certainties that we could agree on were that:
- Bakhmut is a fixing operation, about which Ukraine will pivot when it goes on the offensive.
- The offensive could be in the north or the south, because both options provide good options.
- The Russians are unlikely to manage any sort of significant breakthrough in the foreseeable future. That their offensive is going to continue to shamble forwards incrementally, measured in metres, until Ukraine moves.
And; that the key questions at this stage, that will be answered soon are:
- Is it resources; or weather; or waiting for NATO tanks to arrive; or the recent increase in forward positioned Russian airpower that is holding Ukraine back from starting an offensive?
- Where will the Ukrainians move? In the south; or in the north?
Unfortunately, although we can speculate, we are only making educated guesses and need to wait and see if our analysis is correct. Meanwhile, the most important battle for NATO is maintaining interest in and support for Ukraine’s war of self-defence. And; across the remainder of the world supporting the international rule of law and the right of all countries to maintain their sovereignty regardless of the size or ambition of their neighbours.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer and TDBs military blogger
Keep up Ben. Credible reports with satellite pictures show Russia has amassed 1800 tanks, 400 planes and 300 attack helicopters just out of reach of Ukraine air defense.
Simplicios79 has an excellent substack breaking it all down, Putin’s address in a few days time will reveal all expect a escalation to either an anti Terrorism operation or a full declaration of war.
As per the “small company’s” Russia is now employing what is essentially hit and run attacks to avoid detection, during WW2 it took 5 minutes for the chain of command to order a strike once identified, 15 minutes during Vietnam and now up to 1 hour during the current conflict, Ukraine is employing the same tactics.
Thanks for the commentary Ben. Once again – keep them coming!
Question: What exactly happened in Vuhledar? It seems the Russians were hammered. They lost dozens of tanks and about 500 men. Not untrained conscripts either – elite troops from the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade. Ukraine seems to have done something special there…
At this point it seems to be a matter of who runs out of artillery ammo first. The West has surged munition manufacture but despite that, they cannot keep up with demand for shoulder launched anti-tank rounds so Ukraine is now rationing their use. NATO can however punch out a large number of 155mm rounds and this is becoming the majority of rounds fired. It outranges the Russian 152mm equivalent and that may be decisive. On the Russian side there are reports they have used up all their new artillery rounds, have nearly used up their no-so-new ammo so are now scratching around for very old and unreliable stock. There are reports of misfires on the Russian side – a tricky situation when there is likely to be counter battery fire at any moment, all while trying to clear a barrel.
Read symplicious76 link on my comment below, he goes into detail about the targeting satellite systems, electronic warfare etc. You realise how impossible it is for either side to move and not be accurately targeted. Hence the slow nearly static attrition.
The US threats against China (serious consequences) apparently, could be mildly funny if not so serious–the yanks are warning China not to offer material support to Russia in respect of Ukraine! This conflict would likely have been over months ago if not for massive deliveries of US weapons and spying services.
Is any more evidence needed really that this is an imperialist power proxy war?
By saying this ‘conflict’ would have been over long ago, You mean this ‘war’ would have been over long ago if Russia had conquered and subjugated Ukraine. An aim that you obviously support.
No doubt if what you wanted had happened TM, the falling out of windows epidemic in Russia would have spread to Ukraine, and calling this ‘conflict’ (your words), a war would see Ukrainian citizens as well as Russian citizens jailed.
I’m not a military expert. I don’t even really follow the geopolitics of it. I do however have a number of friends living in Ukraine and another that has been back and forth there a few times since the conflict began. If anyone thinks the Ukrainian people are just going to surrender or negotiate they are mistaken. With the indiscriminate targeting of civilians they no longer want to just kill every Russian soldier they see, they want to kill every Russian full stop. Russian sympathisers have already had a bad time and it’s going to get worse for them. This isn’t me taking a side, this is just what I know from my regular conversations with people actually living in the country.
So yes you can tell me about Russia’s superior military and how it’s all the fault of the USA and that the people of Ukraine are going to be abandoned, but if you want to tell me that Russia is going to “win”, well I’ll take that bet.
(And because a lot of people like to mention history many people there they still remember their history with Russian including the famine)
Thank you for this feedback.
Ukrainians have been screwed over by Russia once to often.
A very apposite post Vlad! Thanks
There were those who said Ukraine wasn’t a ‘real country’ before the war, but Putin’s war has effectively cemented its nationhood in the minds of the global community.
All real nations have their heroes and their national songs. Ukraine now has plenty of both!
In short no. Yet more evidence of Western double standards and Hubris.
For months reading all and sundry has caused me dissatisfaction with how this war is reported and how its’ prosecution differs from our precepts.
In short all I read seemed out of touch, so I looked around. Everywhere.
I found these, they completely changed my technical understanding of the current technology and operations. Both authors explain how both sides operate, strengths weaknesses etc regardless of their own sympathies.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/all-seeing-eye-can-russia-break-through
(there’s more symplicius76 to delve into)
https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/war-update-dedicated-to-slavyangrad
when the west discovers tanks in storage have to be maintained not treated as hanger queens
Unlike Russia, Western Armies do maintain their equipment in storage. With the intent that it can be readily revived.
When Germany took over the Mig 29’s from East Germany in 1990, they found they had to create a whole set of computerised maintenance manuals. Yes, East Germany had done some maintenance on a regular basis, but nothing like would be expected of a Western Air Force. The manuals were very basic. To get to Western levels required a whole new level up. Not overly surprising when you consider the East Germans manufactured Trabants and the West Germans, BMW’s and Mercedes.
Many of the photos of the T72’s now being refurbished by Russia show that they were not well maintained, basically they were just parked, often outside. Presumably it is the best that are being refurbished. Russia has about 12,000 T64’s and T72’s in long term storage. Based on the news items out of Russia, it is clear that no more than a third of the tanks in storage (say 4,000) can be refurbished in anything like a reasonable time and cost. Most of the rest, some of which have been stored outside exposed to elements for well over 35 years, are to all intents and purposes scrap iron.
Wayne, have a read of the links I posted. This is a peer to peer conflict, neither the West nor Russia have a technical or organisational edge (except maybe in hypersonics, advantage Russia). We really need to cut out this supremacist thinking and recognise our strengths and weaknesses.
Wayne, I hope you’ve been to China. Thirty years ago it was backward. My trips to Beijing and Schenzhen shocked me, we are comparatively backward. I’ve been into their high tech factories, world leading. That removed any ideas I had about Western supremacy. Russia too has concentrated on producing high tech and rebuilt industry. I’ve recently been in rust belt USA, looked at their technology. They are falling far behind. Its a sorry picture after years of offshoring and financialisation. America is not dealing with the Soviets.
Stop giving Ben space to spread his wishful thinking – Russia is playing the smart game – America is not.
I believe this is a war between the US and China.
The idea here being to destroy Russia (or at least control their oil & gas as well as food) so they can isolate China. They already have the sea blockade available to them so this is the last piece. Then they will get Taiwan to declare they are an independent country to get China to attack.
It’s a high risk strategy as Russia won’t relinquish Crimea nor allow itself to be broken up. My view is that they’ll push the button well before that happens.
And blockading China is likely to be worse than the last time this happened (Japan & Pearl Harbour).
Quite frighteningly possible, Brigitte. But the simplists here will say you have gone down a rabbit hole.
(Not a bad place to be if the balloon really does go up..)
The Chinese can trade with anyone especially with the Russian. They’ve been trading with each other for centuries back when the Mongols conquered Kievan Rus. Who the fuck is the west in any moral and military strength to tell China & Russia what to do?
And this premise that the world is against Russia is ludicrous, as the collective west isn’t the whole fucken world. I get skeptical of pro- Nato western articles such as Ben’s when before our very own eyes Europe has become this sacrificial lamb for US supremacy ova their region furthering an economical war with China , inadvertently or otherwise impoverishing Europeans.
The Japanese attacked Pearl harbour because of such tactics the US imposed on them. What the US does around the globe breaks every rule in the book. The sanctionings enough are war-crimes, but self reflection for a dying empire is futile and the world steps a little closer to uncertainty.
Like my reply to Brigitte – frighteningly likely.
Afghanistan showed that the USA does not appear to learn from earlier mistakes.
What is there for the US to learn from Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, central America etc etc?That common garden Joe Yank is happy to go off on a patriotic chore? No problem there. That the military industrial complex will do extremely well especially if plenty of things that go bang need replacement. That little countries do as they are told because if not Uncle Schmuel will bomb, sanction etc to get whatever they want with impunity.
Thats whats on the line in Ukraine.
Russia a super power verses Ukraine a small sovereign nation. Sounded like only one outcome. Putin oppresses his citizen with ridiculous restrictions, so they don’t know what his special operations involve. why don’t all his sympathisers go and live in Russia now. Putin and his cronies are gutless cowardly operators fighting citizens rather than military operations. Putin and the leaders of North Kores, Syria and Iran are the pariahs of this generation and are all fools I have respect for China and they seem to conduct themselves in a careful manner.
I hope Ukaraine can repel Hitler and the Nazi’s from the east, and their Stalin legacy.
Quite right Nikorima. The Putinists should go and live in Russia if it is so wonderful. They may be drafted and used as cannon fodder of course, or find themselves on an FSB hitlist.
Comments are closed.