GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Putin’s strategy echoes the Vietnam War
Six-months into the war, the failure of Russia’s planning is both clear and confirmed. We now know that Putin’s plan was to swamp Ukraine with a strategic coup de main or surprise attack that would shatter the Ukrainian people’s will to resist. We also know that he received bad advice both from his generals and from his intelligence service, the Federal’naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, or FSB failed to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to resist. Further, their intelligence assessment was that many people in Ukraine would support a Russian appointed regime and a closer relationship with Russia. However, after this failure and the subsequent loss of initiative in the east of Ukraine, Putin’s war effort continues to escalate.
Putin is stuck, he is a ‘strong man’ and cannot afford to lose the war because his internal political opponents will take advantage of any apparent weakness. However, Putin does not have the political support to openly escalate the war, by mobilising, using tactical nuclear weapons or other terror weapons. Instead, he must fight the war on two ‘fronts’, an external front outside of Russia using diplomacy and military action and an internal front upon which he is fighting a battle to maintain his ‘crown’ within Russia. Do not under-estimate his strength on the internal front, he is a powerful king with a strong security apparatus and will not be easily over-turned. However, it is clear that he does not have absolute power. So he needs to move carefully and quietly working around internal resistance.
In recent months he started slowly mobilising ‘volunteer’ battalions, units generally recruited far from his political base near Moscow. The Russian military has also been furiously recruiting, offering cash incentives and expanding recruitment specifications to allow for older, younger and less fit people to join the military. Covert ways to build an army that Russian mothers and fathers in European Russia will not be concerned about. On 26 August 2022, we saw an escalation, step into the light, an open admission that the ‘special military operation’ was not going well. A presidential decree increasing defence spending and increasing the size of the military by ten percent.
This is not a new situation, in the 1960’s the United States found themselves in the same predicament with the Vietnam War. Successive presidents struggling to quietly escalate their military power so they could fight an unpopular and difficult war that their country had fallen into. Over the course of the war American efforts escalated with limited public oversight, from Kennedy’s increasing deployment of ‘advisors’ to support the south, to Johnson’s open deployment of combat troops after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. What followed was a steady escalation in troop numbers and increasing military force that culminated with Nixon’s huge ‘Linebacker 2’ bombing campaign.
If there is a precedent, what can we learn from it?
The key lesson of the Vietnam War is that conventional military power can be defeated at it’s source by the application of political power. In 1968, the Vietnamese communist forces transitioned to conventional operations launching a large, well-planned offensive across South Vietnam that coincided with Tet or Vietnamese New Year celebrations. Although the Tet Offensive caught the American and South Vietnamese armies off-guard the operation was not a military success. Communist forces were defeated and suffered significant casualties, at the time many American strategists felt that they had won a decisive victory. The transition to conventional operations had allowed American firepower to destroy a great deal of communist military power.
However, regardless of the reality of the tactical situation the Tet Offensive undermined the United States military commander’s political credibility. At home, the American people and politicians decided that the war could not be won.
It is my opinion, that we see a similar dynamic in Ukraine. Putin is like Johnson and Nixon, struggling to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat without the mandate for total war. So he is moving carefully, mobilising by stealth and looking to play to his strategic strengths. Or rather what he perceives to be his strategic strengths, he believes that the liberal democracies of NATO and the West do not have the stomach for a long war.
Putin, thinks that Europeans are soft and weak, corrupted by easy lives and liberties. He believes that, if he can stall and prolong the war he can keep slowly, discretely building his military forces while applying strategic pressure directly on NATO voters by cutting off natural gas supplies this winter. His plan is to force NATO out of the conflict by using the impact of a cold winter and a large cost of living increase on European voters to force NATO’s democratically elected leaders to ‘back off’. By this time he will have rebuilt his field army and be ready, to ‘set’ on Ukraine again.
This is a sensible strategy, if he can’t openly mobilise for political reasons then he needs to slow down and reset. On the ground, we are seeing less artillery, less attacks and more emphasis on building a new army. Yesterday, the Institute for the Study of War reported Ukrainian army statements indicating the size of Russian units operating offensively around the key objective of Bakhmut is getting smaller, possibly an indication of operations being reduced to a minimum level. A new Russian 3rd Army Corps, is being formed from volunteer battalions and recently recruited personnel, safe in the Russian hinterland. The Institute for the Study of War providing this assessment of the situation; “The fact that the 3rd Army Corps units are training on better gear and apparently being held back to deploy in more coherent combined arms groups suggests that the Russian military intends to commit them to offensive operations and hopes to regain momentum somewhere along the front line”.
Further, this week Sergei Shoigu, Russian Defence Minister, speaking at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation admitted the war effort was slowing down, although he ‘spun’ the situation in a more diplomatic manner stating that it is because “Every effort is being done to prevent civilian casualties. It certainly slows down the advance”. It seems clear from actions on the ground and Shoigu’s statement that Putin is playing a long game.
However, there are a couple of problems with Putin’s strategy. The first of which is that strategy and tactics always influence each other and at this point in the war he has significant risk. Most analysts, predict that the Ukrainians don’t have the military power yet to inflict a conventional defeat on the Russians at Kherson. Some argue, that in time they will and others argue that we need to accept that Russia can’t ever be driven out of Ukraine. Lord Dannatt, the ex-Chief of General Staff of the United Kingdom stated the latter opinion this week, he is a very experienced and pragmatic strategist and believes that driving Russia from Ukraine is impossible and that Ukraine’s best option is to negotiate a peace agreement rather than letting the war descend into a long stalemate. Retired United States general David Petraeus, sees things differently believing that “Ukraine’s military now has the strategic advantage over Russian forces” and is poised to take the initiative soon.
My analysis is that the situation developing around Kherson provides the opportunity for Ukraine to win a tactical victory that will damage Putin strategically, possibly fatally. Currently, the Ukrainians have a large Russian force trapped west of the Dnipro River. Satellite photos confirm that Russia is sending heavy equipment through Crimea to the area around Kherson to reinforce their forces. This indicates that they are concerned, however satellite imagery also shows the bridges they need to cross are damaged and major supply bases in Crimea and on the east of the river are being attacked.
If the Russians are ‘cut off’ the Ukrainian’s don’t need vast amounts of combat power to defeat them. A number of small Russian attacks in the area have already been defeated including two on the 27 August 2022. The Ukrainians don’t need to force an assault on Kherson, instead by isolating the defenders they may be able to force a low-cost victory. Will the Russian soldiers in Kherson fight? Are they motivated enough to fight a long, tough defensive battle? Or will they surrender? I know that if I was advising Ukraine, my advice would be to offer a Ukrainian passport and US $ 500 to any Russian soldier that surrenders, perhaps pay more if they are willing to change sides!
Russian soldiers aren’t supermen and the ones on the wrong side of the Dnipro are in a very difficult situation. If their supplies start to run out, reinforcements stop and most importantly casualties can’t be evacuated. I’m sure they will be considering their options.
Putin’s second risk relates to the covert mobilisation of forces, it is likely that he is banking on using the mobilisation to mitigate the risk of a failure in Kherson. A spare corps sitting in reserve is a powerful instrument in a campaign. However, this may be a shaky proposition because as this war continues to demonstrate success in battle is related to the motivation, training and technical prowess of your soldiers. Russia is taking time and providing modern equipment to their new reserve but I agree with the Institute for the Study of War’s assessment that; “Better equipment does not necessarily make more effective forces when the personnel are not well-trained or disciplined, as many members of the 3rd Army Corps’ volunteer units are not”. The hard reality is that effective soldiers take time to train and without a large cadre of long service non commissioned officers (corporals, sergeants and other soldiers that lead small groups and maintain technical standards) the Russian army is at a significant disadvantage.
If the Russians in Kherson fail, this will be a tactical victory with major strategic consequences, particularly for Putin. Like the Tet Offensive the impact of the operation will be felt most keenly at strategic level and at home in Russia. How will Putin ‘spin’, being defeated by the Ukrainians and tens of thousands of Russian soldiers being taken into captivity? Politically, the impact of a victory at Kherson in Russia is going to be huge. At this stage there are many unknowns and whether or not the Ukrainians have the combat power to isolate Kherson is uncertain but the geography of the area and Russia’s reinforcement of the city provides an opportunity to turn a battle in Ukraine into a significant personal defeat for Putin that could impact on his hold on political power in Russia.
Ben Morgan is a tired Gen X interested in international politics. He is TDB’s Military analyst.
Hahahahahahahah, sure Ben.
South Vietnam wasn’t a real country, it was an American puppet state. Noone in their right mind in the South Vietnamese army wanted to fight. Wheras the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s militias have been fighting against extermination by your nazi friends from the American coup regime in rump Ukraine for the past eight years. Clearly, these things are the same!
Yes Igor. Now go back under your rock.
I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, the Domino Theory, the helicopters pushed over the side of the US navy ship as Saigon fell. I’ve watched the “War on Terror” and seen the destruction of Iraq followed by popular resistance, we recently watched the end of two decade long campaign with the Taliban taking over Afghanistan. I remember the USSR losing there as well.
There are two common factors: The occupying power lost each time despite overwhelming conventional force. The occupied people never bought into the occupiers narrative and continued to resist despite casualties.
Id suggest that Russia understands this well and will want nothing to do with occupying hostile territory. Anything west of the Dneiper would be of too little worth and too much cost. Russia may be best served by taking the ethnically Russian dominated areas and leaving the West to inherit the huge debt incurred in the war, letting the Americans choke on the inability of the reduced Ukrainian rump to even pay the interest. This is a glorious example of how the West has managed to undermine one of their greatest triumphs, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. As a Westerner I’m far from impressed.
Good points Ben. Keep them coming!
One additional thing: it’s all very well for Putin to play the long game but economic constraints means he doesn’t have time.
> The US is busy refilling German gas reserves so they have enough for the winter. Last I heard it was past 85%.
> Without technical support by foreign companies, Russian oil and gas production will slowly grind to a halt. They don’t have the industrial base to make or repair equipment and must import it all.
Andrew, you might want to read this US energy site. It appears that the US gas may “save” Europe but that the cost is crippling for the European and American consumers. Russian gas will still be needed, they will ship a fraction to make the same profit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/climbing-natural-gas-prices-could-force-us-slash-exports-europe
Yes indeed!
It’s going to be a rough winter in Europe. I’m in the UK at the moment and the sense of impending panic is palpable. Energy prices are set to treble this winter!
All this in a world with plenty of gas and oil. This whole mess was initiated by the Biden administration and his election promise to “destroy the oil and gas industry”. The result was a jump in the oil price as they implemented their policies and a billion dollars per day gift to Putin. In his eyes the West had become morally and strategically weak and therefore ripe for invasion.
Not so sure Andrew that Putin either wants to or needs to invade Europe, getting really Machiavellian it would appear that Europe is committing economic suicide and Russia is not the only benefactor. Check out Michael Hudson on Youtube etc, he maintains that the US is a benefactor too as the collapse of Europes economies leaves them open to financial exploitation and further privatization, whilst removing German industrial competition. He also implies that the US doesn’t want Europe sucked into Eurasian integration, better to weaken them to make them unattractive to BRICS trade.
You might also want to think about this. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/beyond-imagination-polish-homeowners-line-days-buy-coal-ahead-coming-winter
Dream on about the USA filling up ANY European gas for the winter.
Look into how slow and un0cost effective liquid gas is. Let alone the LACK of appropariate facilities in Europe.
You MAY need to reread that report about 85% of winter gas needs for Germany. It was written so badly as to GIVE that impression but it does NOT mean how you’ve interpretted it.
Interesting Ben. The Vietnam analogy certainly carries water but there are some small differences between the two that may account for a very large difference.
As a teenager I remember the six o’ clock TV news showing endless dramatic reports from Vietnam via American (and Australian) TV reporters on the ground. These reports were very graphic (even by “today’s” standards – YouTube won’t show a lot of these old news items) and apart from the 3 million Kiwis tuning in were also beamed in to America’s TVs. This was a very significant factor in mobilising anti war sentiment in America. It was also the last time the American military allowed TV reporters free rein in fields of battle.
We don’t really know what’s being beamed in to the homes and dachas of the Russian population but I’d bet you $14 it’s not what we can see. This could well be significant. If the Russians are being successfully conned into believing they are continuing the Great Patriotic War the opportunity for discontent and anti war sentiment is severely limited.
In this respect the situation is much more like WWII Germany with their weekly “Die Deutsche Wochenschau” (literally the German weekly show) which simply showed Germany winning all the time, even in the editions from 1944-45.
Many commentators have said not to rely on the overthrow of Putin as a solution and although I would dearly love to see that happen, I wouldn’t hold my breath. He has an iron grip on power and a swathe of enablers.
I do enjoy reading your comments.
Country 404 does not have the people or the training to use Western weapons to proper effect, ironically Ben uses the same argument to suggest the Russian 3rd Army will suffer the same issues.
Ukraine for the win! what bullshit.
Simple reality dictates when Ukraine releases murderers and rapists to fight for the “cause” you are dredging the bottom of the barrel. To quote the institute for the study of war extensively is lazy analysis used for a pre determined agenda and shows bias.
The brutal murder of Dugin has rallied the Russians who are used to sacrifice for the Motherland, 27 million dead during WW2 vs 700k from the US who “saved us” is ignorance to the hundredth degree. Under estimate the Russian resolve to your own peril. It’s best to look at the SMO like the tortoise and the Hare, slow and steady wins the race.
How many of the 2.7 million were killed by their own side .The winter saved Russia along with poor planning by the Germans.
Stalins army could not beat Finland due to him having killed off many of the generals due to his paranoia. They were I’ll prepared for war and relied heavily on UK and USA to supply weapons
Finngrin, I fear you are repeating yourself about WW2. ‘The Great Patriotic War’ has nothing to do with the present one. Putin launched it and Putin is the aggressor. Anyway there were Ukrainians in the Soviet forces fighting against Hitler as well as Russians. Don’t be ridiculous.
Cantab, always with an opinion based on nothingness. Knock, knock anything in there?
Call it what you will Cantab, the fact remains the vast majority of Russians recently polled believe they are at war with the West. Totally irrelevant “Ukraine’s” were fighting with the “Soviets” against Hitler, does the Banderistas (Ukrainian) Neo Nazis aligned with Hitler’s fascists’ balance the equation?
Is that your version of academic critical thinking Cantab. I’m underwhelmed by the statement that the Great Patriotic war has nothing to do with this one.
Does being encroached upon and invaded by Western powers most recently in 1941 mean nothing to Russia’s psyche? There are US academics and military types such as Mearsheimer who point out that NATO moving east and arming Ukraine forces is to Russia very visceral provocation simply because of the historic memory. Should Russia forget the 27 million dead and simply roll over to another Western threat?
As a self declared expert with degree in Russian and antecedents from there tell us, what should Russia have done? What do you think some alternative Atlanticist Russian leader would have done? Do you really think, regardless of who ruled them Russians would not feel threatened given their history?
Answer those questions without bothering to give the “its all Putin fault / Russian imperialism trope” because quite frankly I don’t agree with his actions. Personally I’d have advised him to turn off the gas to Ukraine and Germany, cut diesel, fertiliser, grain, titanium, rare earth etc supplies to the West and sit quietly watching regimes crash. But hell, now he’s doing that as well courtesy of US sanctions.
The point is, Russia has to rid itself of the KGB/FSB grip on the country. Russia is dominated by this bunch of criminals in conjunction with the Russian mafia. Read Mark Galeotti on this. There has to be another revolution unless there are enough moral security forces and oligarchs to overturn the criminality of the Putin regime.
Cantab I don’t doubt your description of the Russian regime. Now apply that to Ukraine, ditto. Then look at the CCP, the US oligarchic system, et al. Moral virtue doesn’t exactly abound.
That said national historic characteristics do exist. If Russia was ruled by Mr Virtuous and was a splendid lovely place do you think that given the record of Western aggression, in the face of NATO encroachment, do you think that a Russian ruler would have acted any differently?
Nick J, if it had been the late Mikhail Gorbachev, RIP, there would be no war.
At least Ukraine is trying to cast off its corruption and agree to the rule of law. The EU will impose extensive requirements on Ukraine for entry. The Kremlin has no intention of doing this and continues to behave like the criminals and thugs that they are. Try and start a business in Russia and see how far you get. Ask Bill Browder and countless others that had their businesses taken over by criminals supported by the FSB.
If you believe Ukraine is cleaning up its act, there are fairies in the garden. Then you get to theft, ask Venezuela and Russia about “seized public and private assets like gold reserves and currency deposits. This is actually very much like a gang war except that the gangs run nations. At some point however they will all see Corleones mandate about not being good for “business”.
Surely Nick J, Ukraine’s desire to join the EU is an acknowledgement that they have to clean up their act and they will submit to that. Bulgaria was in a similar state before their admission to the EU.
So yes, you agree Ukraine is corrupt and like Bulgaria “desires” to clean itself up to gain EU membership. Leopards don’t change spots, they can pretend to be cheetahs, but they too have spots.
Years in commerce gives great instinct on when you should count your fingers after a handshake. IMHO Zhelenskys and the EUs hand shakes would mutually remove all digits. Both fail to demonstrate trustworthiness, there’s plenty of evidence to verify that.
Underestimate German people’s resolve to your own peril.
The German people have suffered worse hardship and made greater sacrifices in the past on the wrong side of history.
To endure hardship and sacrifice in the cause of Ukraine’s freedom, Germany is on the right side of history.
In my opinion Germany is unlikely to buckle to economic blackmail from Russia despite the hardship their defiance will bring.
The Russian Federation is on the wrong side of history. The Russian people, especially the young, feel it. As the losses keep mounting Russia’s resolve to win this war will not last.
There would appear to be rather a lot of Russian apolgists on this blog Gerrit. I guess Nathan has “done his research” and his now an authority on the situation 20,000km from the conflict. A quick 30 second google search refutes or questions all of his assertions but in his mind that will be “false news” because it doesn’t support his narrative. In the meantime thousands get slaughtered, raped, made homeless etc etc in a senseless war they had no part in starting. It’s bloody tragic.
Sylvian agreed. Nathan is a numbskull!
Cantabrian: You really have a Master’s degree in Russian? (Mine is in German.) Some good, well-argued comments by you recently, but both the comments you have made about Nathan in this thread I find unworthy of someone who has a Master’s degree. Childish name-calling is horribly unproductive. To my mind..
Thank you In Vino. And a graduate of the NCRE at UC. I have to stand corrected on your quals then.
Nathan gets his info from one source and does not bother to triangulate. No information in a war is gospel anyway – no matter which side is saying it. However I will not back down on Putin – he must go. Don’t forget though Russia and Ukraine are my countries and I am patriotic, particularly about Slavic culture. The history of the region is so complicated. After all Poland used to own half of Ukraine.
This seems to be a very polarising issue for many. Very hard to be clear on what’s really going on.
I think:
1. No country should invade another regardless of psychological provocations or security ‘concerns’.
2. This invasion wasnt poorly thought out (militarily underestimated perhaps) but economically, Putin thought this all through, very likely as much as 7 – 10 years ago. Putin has a Masters in Energy economics? OR SIMILAR and has built up their energy sector hugely.
The world is facing all sorts of challenges but by far the greatest in the short term (3 – 5 years) is energy production/ insecurity.
Despite the world’s pull out of Russia and pull back in gas etc, Russia’s finances are going gangbusters. (Check out Financial pundits like Alisdair McLeod and Diego Parilla) Putin has ensnared Europe in his plans so much so that to some extent winning the land war is unlikely to be the deciding factor.
3. If the Ukraine can get back Kherson and or anything up to Mariupol, they will be doing very well indeed. After that, they should cut their losses before they fall into a Winter War? like Finland where they get ground down over time and ultimately have to give up large swathes of territory.
4 It would be great to boot Russia back into its own borders but wars are about money and Ukraine has far less than Russia and despite how the West behaves currently ‘Winter is coming’ and the costly support Europe and the US are providing will begin to dwindle quite soon.
Fantail, I think you will find that whatever qualifications Putin claims, someone else would have done the work!
The good thing about Ben is that he is consistently close to the truth, when we reverse what he says. And perhaps that’s the point of him being here. Otherwise peace should be the constant catch cry here.
Indeed when we reverse what he says. Myself I don’t actually believe any source until examined for implicit bias on the Sir Humphrey “well they would say that wouldn’t they” test. What emerges however is a more accurate picture when you overlay what both sides do actually agree on.
I keep saying to Ben “read the map” because it is one source of reasonable accuracy.
Love Sylvians faith in a simple Google search, as if the algorithms and censorship don’t happen on that search engine. We live in a world where propaganda rules first and foremost, it requires we think and question sources more because the real evidence cannot be hidden.
Ben, other than a tired Gen X interested in international politics.
I have no idea of your background in historical events of your sources of information.
I am an early Baby boomer and have lived(and served) through many of the conflicts after WW2.
On reading your opinions, I sense you get much of your information from the West(ie Ukraine and US/UK “”sources””.
May I respectfully suggest you widen your reading/viewing to encompass an alternative view to the western propaganda machine.
A source which I find credible and factual is based around the Austrian Military Analysts. Austria is of course remaining neutral in this conflict and would therefore appear to have no axe to grind.
If you google Colonel Markus Reisner then you will get a number of articles both in txt(thank goodness for google translate) as well as Youtube interviews-in English.
eg
https://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=11511 needs translate
https://kucnews.com/how/interview-with-colonel-reisner-russia-bites-its-prey-like-a-terrier-73779.html
The best idea that tedheath comes up with is calling people names. Hahahaha dids at school do this,grow up why don’t you.