GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Dams, drones and Russia retreats
Putin continues to work hard to stabilise the political situation in Russia, and has appointed a brutal new commander in Ukraine, bombarded Ukraine with drones and long-range missiles and made noises about finishing the mobilisation. This week martial law was declared in the annexed oblasts (regions) another action designed to demonstrate Putin’s strength and willingness to aggressively impose his will on Ukraine. At present he is delicately managing to balance the desires of the ultra-nationalists that form his traditional support base (and want a larger war) against the fears of Russians worried about the war expanding, who oppose mobilisation. It is a delicate game; and in the last week he appears to be playing it successfully.
Internationally, Putin is also gaining ground. This week American Republicans threatened to cancel United States support for Ukraine if they win a Senate majority in mid-term elections. A terrible threat. A threat that strengthens Putin’s position, providing an incentive to ‘hold on’ longer and wait for NATO resolve to waiver. A threat, that also demonstrates to other totalitarian regimes that the United States may no longer be willing to lead and support international democracy.
Political turmoil in the United Kingdom also contributes to a general unease surrounding NATO’s support. The key fact is that the United Kingdom and the United States are the ‘heavy lifters’ in the alliance’s aid to Ukraine; providing billions of dollars of support including equipment, training and logistics. If either fails Ukraine’s future is grim; although unlikely to lose now, without NATO support victory will take longer and come at a much higher human cost.
On Friday, Lloyd Austin the United States Secretary of Defence and Sergei Shoigu spoke on the phone for the first time since May. This is an interesting discussion and concurred with an observation made two weeks ago by Professor Nina Khrushcheva, a Professor of International Affairs at The New School in New York City, who in an interview on CNN observed that the forthcoming G20 meeting could provide an opportunity for Presidents Putin and Biden to ‘connect’ and start discussing a peace solution. Perhaps this call is the groundwork for a discussion, because both presidents now face increasing domestic pressure to finish the war.
In the north, Russia is holding the Kremina – Svatove line and made some successful, small counter attacks in recent days. Further south, Russian pressure continues on the town of Bhakmut. Russian forces trying to push north-west towards the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.
And; on the southern coast around Kherson, Russia appears to be making sensible decisions that are stabilising the frontline and reducing its length before winter. Russian leadership publicly admitted there are difficulties, preparing Russians at home for a withdrawal. Later ordering Kherson’s civilians to evacuate on 22 October, actions that hint at a more systematic and considered approach to planning. Evacuating civilians achieves the following objectives:
- It protects Russian supporters from Kherson. It is easier to protect collaborators outside the area where the battle is fought.
- Removing civilians from the area means that Russia can more aggressively target Ukrainian partisans operating in the area.
- Longer term, removing the civilian population means that the area can be repopulated later with ethnic Russians more likely to support the Kremlin’s goals.
Removing the civilian population from Kherson could also be a prelude to either the use of weapons of mass destruction like gas or tactical nuclear weapons. Or, for flooding the area by blowing up the Nova Kakhovka Dam. Or, it could simply be that Russia is driving the population out of the area in order to economically undermine any Ukrainian attempt to rebuild Kherson’s economy and its sense of community. At this stage we don’t know; and this uncertainty is likely to be a key consideration for Ukrainian commanders. If I was on the Ukrainian staff, I would be urging caution because the last thing the Ukrainian’s want is to concentrate a large force for an attack on Kherson that is then crippled by nuclear or chemical attack or by being caught in a flood caused by the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam. Uncertainty about Russia’s potential actions may slow Ukraine’s advance enough to let Russia withdraw.
But how realistic is the destruction of the dam? Does destruction of the dam and swamping the Dnipro River’s flood plain fit with Russia’s wider plans?
The answer is – Probably.
Ukraine has reported that Russia is preparing the dam for demolition but destroying a dam is a big job; and a couple of truckloads of explosive won’t be enough. Instead, it takes a significant engineering effort, lots of specialised explosives and sophisticated planning. However, it is unlikely that Russia’s plans for the dam include total destruction unleashing a tidal wave of water surging towards Kherson. We know that the Russians are lowering the water level in the dam, their local leadership stating that it is to “reduce the possibility of damage being caused by a Ukrainian attack”. It seems more likely; and more effective that they plan to damage the dam rather than destroy it. Creating a difficult to fix breach, large enough to increase the flow of the Dnipro River that hinders Ukrainian movement for some time before it can be fixed. Thus preventing Ukrainian forces from crossing the river further downstream or from using the dam itself as a crossing point and supporting Russia’s withdrawal from the west bank of the river by preventing Ukrainian pursuit.
Based on the current evidence, it seems unlikely that we will see a significant battle for Kherson. It also seems unlikely that Russia will use nuclear or chemical weapons because the political consequences are likely to outweigh the tactical benefits. Instead, the withdrawal across the Dnipro River is notable because it is well signalled and is taking place in as orderly and well managed a way as Russia can manage at this time. The Russian public are being told that there are problems preparing them for a withdrawal. It is reported that Russian heavy equipment is being moved east across the river to safety and that command elements, medical and logistics support is also crossing to the east bank. A carefully planned withdrawal aiming to save Russian equipment and lives is being undertaken; and flooding the Dnipro and damaging the dam so that Ukraine cannot use it as a crossing point certainly contributes to this operation.
Currently, Russia is making ground strategically, so it makes sense at a tactical level to act conservatively. Using nuclear or chemical weapons would damage Russia’s international position. Instead, it makes more sense to withdraw to an easily defensible line, like the Dnipro River. A defensive line that could be accentuated by breaching the Nova Kakhovka Dam. The breach does not have to be cataclysmic it just needs to ensure that Ukraine cannot easily pursue the withdrawing Russian forces.
By doing this Russia shortens its frontline, protects access to Crimea and can concentrate more forces along the remainder of the frontline providing a higher level of certainty that their defence will hold. Then Russia can wait, cheap Iranian drones are already proving successful at attacking Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and utilities. The approaching winter will impact heavily on Ukrainian homes without electricity. Russia is probably betting that winter will also limit Ukraine’s ability to maintain its offensive, that instead Ukraine will use the winter to rest and reconstitute its forces rather than pushing east. A respite for Russia’s frontline soldiers and an opportunity to reassess, rebuild and plan.
Meanwhile, winter will also impact on Ukraine’s supporters. Americans will be paying more for petrol and their economy is faltering. Soon the United Kingdom may fall into economic recession and deprived of Russian gas Europeans will have a cold winter. It would not take much to weaken NATO’s support. Although Ukraine may not be completely conquered there could be options to bring them to the negotiating table and retain control of Crimea and the all-important land bridge.
If Russia’s strategy is evolving then Ukraine’s must too. Putin does not think like a Western leader. He is more like a medieval tyrant whose sole aim is to retain personal power and the loyalty of his court. Every Russian defeat raises questions about the leader’s fallibility and military defeat is the only sure way to return Ukrainian territory to its rightful owner. Ukraine has limited time and must continue to aggressively pursue battlefield defeat of the Russian army because cracks are starting to show amongst their international supporters.
Ukraine currently has NATO support, but must make the most of it and continue its aggressive offensive operations. And, while NATO leaders maintain a mandate from their electorates to support Ukraine, they cannot afford to allow Putin the opportunity to escape either by threats or by slowing down and playing a ‘long game’. Douglas London’s article ‘Addressing Putin’s Nuclear Threat: Thinking Like the Cold War KGB Officer That He Was’ on the Just Security blog summed up the strategy as follows “And that choice is not to blink, to not merely maintain the pressure against him on all fronts, but to increase it. Putin’s off ramp should not be some face-saving deal the West must choreograph that he will perceive as weakness and therefore raise the stakes”.
Essentially, Ukraine has the capacity to win the war and drive Russia out of the territories it invaded. Russia’s military and economy is collapsing and offering Putin any sort of an off-ramp prolongs the inevitable Ukrainian victory and creates more human suffering. At this time the United States, NATO and the other countries supporting Ukraine need to remain united in their commitment to the international rule of law. Not doing so will only empower other rogue nations to use force against their neighbours and rivals.
Ben Morgan is a tired Gen X interested in international politics. He is TDB’s Military analyst.
Hmm, for the first time I get a sense of desperation about the prospect of an off ramp for Putin. That tells me that he is going to get one.
I think he should get one. People as eminent as Kissinger thinks he needs one. Kissinger may not be as sharp as he was, but he has a very deep understanding of the implications of great power rivalry, especially with the nuclear dimension. Kissinger will have some heft with US Republican senators. They will encourage the US administration to be realistic about what is possible.
As I have noted here in the past, Russian retention of Crimea and the 2014 territories, maybe a little on the east of Dnipro river in the south. Russia gives up the $500 billion frozen money. Ukraine with a NATO guarantee, possibly membership. Though the latter will be a tough negotiation.
So I guess we can unite against other rogue states like Israel can we?
Being as how we’re so morally upright and all?
Senseless ,avoidable war….Ukraine is being destroyed….Russia will not..lose.
All good Ben – thanks for the commentary
Blowing the dam has consequences for Crimea. It gets water from the dam along a canal.
Ukraine has withheld water to the Crimea after the 2014 annexation. Russia reinstated the flow after gaining control of the dam and Kherson in 2022.
Blowing the dam and loosing control of the western bank of the Dnieper will mean Russia can no longer count on the North Crimean Canal to provide water.
“A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea’s water prior to the canal’s 2014 shutdown. Of that water from the canal, 72% went to agriculture and 10% to industry, while water for drinking and other public uses made up 18%.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal
The canal was built by the Ukrainians in 1957 after they gained governance of the peninsular in 1954.
If Russia wants to make Crimea productive it needs the water from the dam.
Not sure if blowing the dam is a good idea for the Russians. Nor is loosing control of the Dnieper western bank. It will end up with a large swath of unproductive (agriculturally) countryside.
Gerrit, reading maps is useful, it can give you other ideas. If you check the Dneiper North of Kiev there’s the Kiev Cistern. Take that out and you’d flood Kiev and cut every bridge, collapse every dam downstream. Cut off all Ukrainian troops east of the river for months. If the Russians were planning to drop a dam that’s the obvious one. They don’t appear to be doing it, so…. maybe dams are not on their agenda.
The Kiev nutters, well I’m sure that they would have no qualms about washing a city and citizens out to sea.
Russia have history of blowing dams. Both earlier in this war and in WW2. Depriving Crimea of most of its water wouldn’t be very smart though. Perhaps they know there time in Crimea is not going to last and they don’t care and are really desperate? Time will tell! Russia is struggling on the battle field apart from attacking electricity infrastructure and civilian apartment blocks. Russian casualties and equipment losses have been very high. More Russian equipment losses happening as I write in Kherson.
Great pic lol!
Ben, I’m back to reading the map. Russian retreats? No. Ukrainian advances nil. Attacks plenty. Keep dreaming.
On dirty bombs and dams. This reeks of desperation from the Zhelenskys neo Nazis. It scares me that the West would not only support such a criminal genocidal regime (8 years of shelling Dombass citizens) but also ramp up nuclear threats on behalf of them. Do you really want a nuclear war on behalf of the corrupt crooks in Kiev or the neocons in Washington?
Nick J what a torrent of abuse for a so called thinking man! Your confirmation bias has taken its toll!
Tell me about the shelling of civilians over 8 years despite the Minsk agreements. Deny it. Tell me about the banning of Russian language, the burning of opposition in a building in Odessa. tell me about the extrajudicial killings, the banning of opposition parties, the corruption. Tell me it is not true. Be honest.
Some of it is true but not as inflammatory as you would put it. The use of Russian has not been banned but it has not been recognised as an official language. For every allegation you make there is a counter allegation. For example the Berkut aided by the FSB were responsible for the killing of over 100 protesters in Kyiv. This is what brought Yanukovych down. Will you deny this?
The only parties that have been banned are pro-Russian parties and in a time of war Ukraine surely has a right to ban parties of the enemy. The parties of Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko have not been banned and they are in opposition to Zelensky’s party. Even now the Rada is more democratic than the Duma.
Finally a reasoned response. These things did happen, there are no angels in this conflict. Put them in the context of a century and a half of ethnic and political conflict and you will find multiple sides committing these acts. No angels, layers of emnity.
So should we choose sides? I don’t like anybody, I have little time for Putin, less for Biden, zero for Zhelensky. But I do understand that Ukraine is a pawn between Russia’s national interests and US neocon exceptionalism imperialism. After Albrights comments on a million dead Iraqi children is it simply a choice between evils? But there is in this conflict a third evil. Neo Nazis, a celebration of Bandera and the slaughter of Poles and Jews. Do we just let that go? Or turn a blind eye and deny their existence because it is an inconvenient truth?
I don’t condone any of the Bandera supporters behaviour but West Ukraine/East Galicia is a powder keg of ethnicities. Poles there were also guilty of killing Jews and Ukrainians. The relatively mild rule of the Hapsburgs up to World War 1 was replaced by a fiercely nationalistic Polish administration. The Ukrainians weren’t happy and resisted first against Poland and then against Stalin’s USSR. Galicia itself was where Auschwitz is situated. I like the Poles but they did not always behave themselves well. I was writing to friends in Luhansk before February and there was a mix of opinions. Some supported Yanukovych/Putin but others did not. I am not sure about extra-judicial killings but I don’t think the Donetsk republic is exactly innocent. Donetsk is after all a major centre of organised crime and I think many bandits have descended on it from Russia. I discount the neocon argument. You have to remember the strong Polish lobby in the US and the fact that Poland is the US’s staunchest ally in Europe. A lot of the NATO/EU momentum has come from Poland. I heard ex Polish President Kwasniewski speaking at UC some years ago and I have no doubt that Poland wants an ally against Russia in Eastern Europe and it will keep pushing strongly for this.
So why are we taking sides in an ethnic civil war? Check this out, it has a link to a US State Dept report on human rights abuses in Ukraine. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/state-department-report-reveals-human-rights-abuses-ukraine
This gives me heart that the US still has buried in its government some decency, as opposed to the wilful malignency that are the neo Cons.
You talkin about Russia dude?
Then have a think from the other side, forget confirmation bias, give me a believable alternate view. Id back up every word with evidence so either give debate with evidence or accept that you too are trolling.
+1
Hear hear
Why do you hate Ukrainians so much Nick J? Do you know any? Why are you so irrational about them? What have they done to you?
See prior comments, I don’t like anybody involved in this much. I have a neutral attitude to Ukrainians, unless they are Bandera fans. Their history of, and glorification of genocide speaks volumes. Are they your chosen?
I know many Ukrainians and many Russians too. None of the Russians I know would support Putin? Why? Because they regard Ukrainians as their friends and they are the intelligentsia.Many would leave Russia if they had the choice. Only one Ukrainian I know supports Putin.
“None of the Russians I know would support Putin? Why? Because they regard Ukrainians as their friends and they are the intelligentsia.Many would leave Russia if they had the choice.”
Fans of the neo cohen/kagan/cons?
I was under the impression that the damn crossing is damaged enough already that heavy military traffic isn’t possible, so Ukraine would have to get tanks etc across by other means anyway.
Yes, and the Nordstream 1 + 2 destruction is a non event even though we all know who did it! (Hint, Follow the money)
Keep that in mind when the next gas pipeline (Western) is mysteriously damaged & see what the reaction is from is from Nato/USA.
Russian Trolls & Bots on here need to realise they will not change any minds in New Zealand. We don’t want to live like they do in the Russian Federation. Most educated Russians want to live like we do in the West. What needs to change in the RF is to get rid of Putain and his criminal gang. The rot has started in the RAF, conscripts are very unhappy, some in the far flung federations out east are unhappy with the Muscovites, and want outside help (China?). Winter is going to see the Russians freeze to death or surrender in Ukraine. By March UAF will be refreshed, regrouped, and ready to push the RAF out of all occupied territories. Then Ukraine can join NATO.
The Crimea bridge is not carrying heavy road or rail traffic again yet according to public reports and satellite information. So much for those who posted on here saying it had only suffered minimal damage and was back operating as usual. I pointed out at the time it wasn’t carrying heavy road or rail traffic any longer. There are photos circulating today of damage to ships etc at Sevastapol and reports from Russia that all the drones marine and aerial had been shot down. Seems rather strange that shot down drones still managed to inflict damage on a number of targets! Much of the Russian propaganda is rather amusing in how it contradicts itself and is so so easily debunked by the Ukraine and the West. I understand a percentage of it is aimed at a domestic audience not foreigners.