GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Battle for Bakhmut, G20 and tank bridges that spell trouble for Russia

After another week dominated by diplomacy, rather than combat on the battlefield the week finished with a sudden increase in Russian activity especially around Bakhmut.  The most interesting strategic development is China’s diplomatic offensive, the aims of which are hard to define.  Many pundits arguing that China’s charm offensive is simply to support Russia, probably because the Sino-American relationship is currently tense.  The argument is that, China; increasingly isolated by the United States is motivated to more closely support Russia.  Essentially, that ‘the enemy of your enemy is a friend’ and it makes sense to support them. However, this analysis lacks the nuance and depth of context for effective consideration of this week’s activity and the strategy behind it. 

The ‘bigger picture’ is important this week; and worth consideration because the war appears to be entering an interesting strategic phase, and it is possible that China’s recent diplomatic initiatives and Sergei Lavrov’s unplanned connection with Anthony Blinken at the G20 this week are indicators that Putin is realising he has lost the war.  That, it is better to negotiate now, save something and live to fight another day.  Although it is too early to confirm this yet, there is a strong possibility that China and Russia are working together to establish conditions for negotiation.  The strategy may be to undermine international support for the war outside Europe, hoping that the less certain the United States and NATO become of wider international support the more willing they may be to force Ukraine to negotiate. 

 Last week’s G20 meeting, hosted in India demonstrated the growing rift between the rich liberal democracies of Western Europe and North America and the poorer states of the ‘Global South’, the large group of nations that are generally located in the Southern Hemisphere and are relatively non-committal in their support for Ukraine.  This group is a fertile area for building an anti-West / anti-United States political block, many of these countries being ex-colonies of Western powers and often struggling under large amounts of debt owed to European nations.  Last week’s G20 meeting was defined by disagreement about condemning Russia’s invasion.  A disagreement that provides China specifically with an opportunity to establish itself as a ‘peace-maker’; and as a viable alternative to the current international Pax Americana.   A diplomatic battle that is being carried on across the globe as the United States tries to shore up support and isolate China.

At this point not very successfully, United States threats aiming to stop China providing lethal support to Russia and it’s banning access to Tik Tok on government devices probably backfired, making the United States look petty and worried by China’s actions.  It pays to remember that even if China provides military aid of a similar scale to that which NATO is providing Ukraine, Russia will still be defeated. Chinese tech is no match for NATO tech, and Russia’s biggest weaknesses are; training and command culture.  Even if the United States supplied Russia with M1 Abrams tanks and HIMARS they would still end up in the hands of poorly trained, poorly led and unmotivated soldiers unable to use them effectively on the battlefield.   China, probably understands this situation and its wider goal is not defeating Ukraine. Instead, it knows that rumours of it supplying lethal aid to Russia will create an American reaction reinforcing China’s propaganda and especially the idea that the United States is an international bully, more interested in defeating Russia than in bringing peace to Ukraine.  If enough international support can be gathered it may influence the wavering members of NATO and create enough division that NATO support slows down; perhaps even that forcing Ukraine to negotiate becomes a viable option for the alliance. 

So at this stage in the war, it is vital that NATO’s strategic goals are clearly defined.  So far, NATO’s policy position has evolved from providing relatively limited support; to providing an increasing amount of lethal aid. This change in policy does not seem to be driven by clear strategy; but rather by a series of ‘step ups’ often led by NATO’s ‘hawks’ the United Kingdom and the United States.  We know that within NATO there are a range of positions from appeasing Putin; and achieving peace as soon as possible through to completely destroying Russia’s war-making capability. Ukraine needs NATO support so the key question is; How much territory is NATO willing to support Ukraine to recapture?  Should NATO support Ukraine to return to the 24 February 2022 borders? Or; the pre-2014 Invasion of Crimea borders? After all Crimea will be a tough fight to recapture, likewise the areas of Donbas that have Russian speaking majorities.  Therefore, Ukraine, the United States and NATO need to clearly define their strategic objectives, defining their negotiables and non-negotiables so that they can enter this diplomatic, ‘information domain war’ with a clear strategy, or they risk defeat.  And; this battle is bigger than Ukraine, the last thing that the world needs is to be divided into armed camps.  The Cold War should not be repeated.  

Meanwhile, on the battlefield Russia is fighting hard and is likely to take Bakhmut soon. Yevgeny Prigozhin, owner of Wagner Group private military company has been recording videos claiming victory and asking the Ukrainian defenders to surrender.  For him this battle is about cementing his political power in Russia. Unfortunately, for him as this article is written Bakhmut is still in Ukrainian hands and the battle that has raged for seven months may last a few more days.  The battle has always been about fixing Russian forces in the area and inflicting heavy losses and Ukraine will continue to do so for as long as possible. 

The military effect of its loss on Ukraine is minor, providing they are able to withdraw their troops in good order and ‘break contact’.  It seems unlikely that Russia will be able to exploit the withdrawal tactically, when Lysychansk fell the Russians were exhausted and let the Ukrainians retreat and build another defensive line. Further, the axis’s of advance north-west from Bakhmut to Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, are about 40-50kms long and involve crossing a series of undulating ridgelines that rise approximately 1-200m.  The ground is complex, difficult and easy to defend, bisected by small waterways, reservoirs and forested re-entrants.  Bakhmut’s western flank is surrounded by low hills that provide good observation for Ukrainian artillery.  So Russia faces a difficult task exploiting a withdrawal from Bakhmut. However, in Russia the symbolic effects will be significant, hence Prigozhin’s keen desire to highlight his success. 

In the last two days there has also been an increase in Russian activity across the frontline.  Russians continue to be slaughtered attacking Vuhledar and further north, on Kremina-Svatove line Russian forces are making more attacks. However, all of this activity is relatively minor, small scale company attacks in most places involving lots of artillery but only about 100 soldiers and a dozen vehicles.  The only area with larger concentrations appears to be Vuhledar, the attacks in this area being larger.  This activity is not a major offensive, company and battalion attacks are relatively small affairs and certainly don’t win campaigns of this size.  The Russians are either probing Ukraine’s defence or are exhausted and can’t mount larger operations. My money is on the latter.  

Capturing Bakhmut will provide a victory to counter the impact of another series of small but important attacks.  On Monday, a Beriev A 50U Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane was attacked near Minsk in Belarus.  A Belarussian partisan group, BYPOL claiming responsibility.  The attack is interesting because AWACS is a key capability for both sides, these planes monitor the airspace over Ukraine and then coordinate the operations of military aircraft.  Vectoring fighters to intercept enemy attack planes or helping bombers find targets.  An AWACS plane is a very important piece of the intelligence battle. Ukraine probably has access to the best fleet of AWACS in the world, NATO’s AWACS planes are constantly in the sky monitoring everything that happens over Ukraine and deep into Russia.

Russian AWACS capability is less sophisticated, the Beriev A 50U’s radar can detect airborne targets about 600km away and can monitor ground forces about 300km away.  It is able to manage about 10 aircraft at once, but is still a useful capability and Russia only has about nine of these aircraft in its inventory, of which some sources claim only three are operational. So the loss of one is significant, and without it Russia’s ability to manage an air battle is significantly reduced.  Targeting an asset like this deep in Belarus demonstrates a high level of tactical thought and sophistication. 

This operation is in stark contrast to the attack later in the week on the village of Lyubechane in the Bryansk region. Initially, Putin made statements about the attack being Ukrainian terrorists and many observers thought that this attack may be a ‘false flag’ attack by Russian troops pretending to be Ukrainian, in order to generate an anti-Ukraine reaction in Russia and in the wider international community. However, I think that Professor Michael Clarke, ex-director of the Royal United Services Institute assessed the attack correctly, when he described it as too poorly executed to be either a Russian ‘false flag’ attack; or a Ukrainian attack.  It seems that it is simply an attack launched by anti-Putin Russians.  Professor Clarke described the attack as ‘unhelpful’ allowing Putin to promote the idea that Ukraine is attacking Russian civilians and thereby justifying escalation of measures like conscription. I am inclined to agree.

Much more important was the announcement that eight bridging tanks are part of Ukraine’s next aid package from the United States.  A bridging tank is a tank with a folding bridge in place of a turret; that can be launched automatically using hydraulic arms, allowing the crew to stay protected in the tank’s hull. This type of equipment is used for armoured assaults, when rivers or holes in the ground need to be crossed quickly under enemy fire.  The bridge that the tank deploys is between 20-40m long depending on the type so these tanks won’t be used to cross the Dnipro, but a quick look at a map of Ukraine demonstrates that the country is bisected by numerous small rivers, canals and ditches that these bridges can be used to cross.  It is a clear sign that Ukraine is preparing to move. 

Watching recent footage from the frontlines and reading Ukrainian weather forecasts, my estimate is that the campaign season is still some weeks away. The warm winter and spring rain is keeping the campaign immobile.  

In summary, now is an important time to be watching Ukraine.  Strategically, a major diplomatic contest between China and the United States is underway.  Ukraine’s war is a key element of this contest and in the next few weeks expect some big moves as both the United States and China position themselves for the post-war world.  Can China establish itself as a peacemaker in the Ukraine War? Could China establish itself as a global peacemaker, with a moral mandate for leadership of a wider group of nations? Perhaps becoming a voice for the Global South? The only thing we know for sure is that smart people in the United States will be looking at this week’s activities, analysing them and trying to figure out how to counter these initiatives.  

Or; maybe there is no need to counter these moves, perhaps the countries of the Global South understand the international situation; and regardless of Sino-American activities will make their own minds up.  Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s most senior diplomat stayed in India after the G20 and spoke at the Raisina Dialogue, an international conference for diplomats and academics.  His statements about the war in Ukraine being a defensive war, forced on Russia by the NATO and the United States were met with jeers and laughter. 

On the battlefield, tension continues to build.  Russia may soon take Bakhmut, Russian operational tempo increased along the frontline in recent days; but it does not change my assessment of the situation.  Russia is currently fixed, their forces thinly spread and with a large concentration focussed on an area of limited tactical value, Bakhmut.   A battle that appears to be being fought solely for political reasons, Yevgeny Prigozhin aiming to leverage political points at home in Russia from being the conqueror of Bakhmut. 

Meanwhile, spring is coming the ground is drying out and Ukraine is targeting Russian command and control assets; Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks are arriving and so are a set of new armoured bridging vehicles.  So my money is still on Ukraine.

 

 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer and TDBs military blogger