I was in Kyiv for several weeks, partly as a visiting fellow at a leading Ukrainian think tank, the Center for Transatlantic Dialogue. Kyiv is an amazingly elegant and beautiful city; European capital from the top league. Regular air raid warnings sent to your phone, as well as ominous World War II-style sirens, are now largely ignored – despite sporadic missile strikes, Frank Ledwidge, senior lecturer in military strategy and law at the university, writes for The Conversation in Portsmouth.
Cafes and restaurants are open and quite busy. It was at one of the latter that I met a high-ranking Ukrainian civil servant who contacted me expressing approval of something I had said in the international media.
“You know, don’t you, that this time next year a Russian soldier could be sitting right where you are,” he said. “We are losing this war.”
He’s right. There were great victories at Kyiv, Chernihiv and Kharkiv. But with the setbacks in Donetsk and Luhansk, the terrifying realization is that this is likely to be a very bloody war that will last for years. The coast of the country is in the hands of the invaders and its ports are blockaded. A serious economic crisis is looming both in Ukraine and beyond. While Ukraine is not winning, it is losing.
Last week’s NATO summit said it would help member states “adequately” provide support to Ukraine, while recognizing the “specific situation” of each member – possibly the specific situation of some countries unwilling to contribute to defense of Ukraine.
Aid in the form of weapons is still carefully listed, itemized and counted – doing the work of Russian intelligence officers for them, often giving them accurate information about the number and capabilities of weapons provided by donors.
Despite all this, Western weapons have helped Ukraine hold the line and will likely continue to do so. However, they will not be able to impose strategically significant losses on the Russian leaders.
Between 20,000 and 30,000 soldiers killed and a third of Russia’s tank force reduced to scrap is nonsense to Vladimir Putin. Generals sacked or killed? No problem, there’s plenty more where they came from. The original Russian goal of neutralizing Ukraine as a viable state is being achieved.
Kuleba: The world allows Russia to play the “Hunger Games”
The international community should not have allowed Russian blackmail
–
Strategic goals
For Ukraine, as for Russia, the key strategic front is to the south. Recapturing Kherson – the ancient city on the Black Sea coast that Russia appears to be planning to annex as part of its scheme to “return Russian land” – would be a real blow to the Kremlin. Ukrainian forces entering Crimea, a short tank ride from Kherson, would send the message: “This is what strategic defeat looks like.”
So trying this would make sense both militarily and politically. But Ukraine’s problem as it stands is that it lacks the combat power to be certain of success. The trend of arms deliveries is nowhere near what will be needed to ensure the recovery of Ukrainian lands and the subsequent end of this war – through negotiations or a resolution by arms.
A few weeks ago, the US stated as its goal that Russia is “weakened to the point where it cannot do the things it did in the invasion of Ukraine”. This is all very well, but the problem is the means by which the west has chosen to achieve this – long-term attrition, not decisive defeat.
Wanted: More firepower
What the West calls its “arsenal of democracy” is open – but just barely. There is serious doubt as to whether the US is serious about its military goals. The question is: Does the US want the Ukrainians to win or bleed for years?
If it is the former, arrangements must be made very soon to release the thousands of M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley armored fighting vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters and other systems – much of which are currently in storage rather than in service.
No parts of the US armed forces should be depleted. All of this equipment, by the way, was specifically designed to destroy the equipment the Russians now have. Biden’s promise to “stick with Ukraine as long as necessary” has something of a double-edged feel. Without a change in arms supply, “as long as necessary” — a phrase we’ve heard before from Western leaders regarding Iraq and Afghanistan — could mean a very long time indeed. There is, of course, unfortunately, the possibility of Western fatigue with the onset of a long war.
Preparations must begin for the transition from single to hundreds of weapon systems. Ukraine also needs an extensive and systematic regime to form and train brigades capable of exacting this truly heavy strategic price on Putin. Such a mass “training and equipping” system does not seem to be planned.
Back in Kyiv, the colleague’s partner Sergey (until February in product design) was sent to the Donetsk region two weeks ago. He now lives in a bunker near the front line. His group is armed with old Soviet equipment, and their weapons are running low on ammunition.
After the deployment, two of Sergius’ unit were killed. As things stand, at best he will carry out these deployments for years while the rest of the world grows bored, NATO strengthens its borders, and the west provides barely any weapons.
In 1941, Nazi officers were enjoying their holidays in Paris – but not in London – when Winston Churchill uttered the words: “Give us the tools and we will do the job”. Like these Germans, Russian officers can still enjoy the beautiful capital of Ukraine. All that stops them are the Ukrainian soldiers and their still mostly outdated tools.
