On 07 Oct 2023, President Putin was given an unusual
birthday present from an unexpected source, the Hamas attack on Israel and the
outbreak of war in Gaza was his perfect 71st birthday gift in every
sense. For one thing, the war in Ukraine departed from the front pages of
international media, and the heads of the United States and the West turned once
again towards the Middle East.
Consequentially, the Ukrainian conflict looked like a
limited war, when compared to Israel’s war in Gaza, which has the risk of
escalating and expanding in the region. Further, President Putin was secure in
the fact that the aid to Ukraine as far as arms, ammunition and Western
deterrence by deploying troops in the vicinity of Ukraine would now stand
divided between the Ukrainian and Israeli cause. Finally, the brutality of the
Hamas and its mirror image while retaliating by Israel have paled the Russian –
Ukrainian conflict.
Prior to 07 Oct the majority view by Western analysts
seemed to be that a ‘stalemate’ was considered to be a ‘pessimistic view point
as far as Ukraine was concerned’. The
West had invested the Ukrainian Defence Forces with state-of-the-art weapon
systems and they were hoping that the counter offensive would be successful. The
EU had done what was unthinkable before the ‘invasion’ that is supplied lethal
equipment and delivered it to a non-member state at war. Aid to Ukraine was the buzzword and there
were frequent trips by President Zelenskyy to various capitals demanding
assistance to fight the war.
Mission Impossible: The Counter Offensive
There was much speculation and optimism regarding the Ukrainian
counter offensive given their initial successes in the two operations they had
conducted in 2022, and, due to the fact that their troops had been armed and
trained by the West. However, the Leopards and Challengers failed to make any
break through across the obstacle line which the Russians had created in the
winter months. The hope was that Ukrainian gains would result in the Russians
being forced to negotiate for a resolution to the conflict but this was an
illusion.[1]
The flood of Western support, it was believed would
enable Ukraine to evict the Russians. The German Leopard 2, British Challenger
2, and American M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles
promised were meant to decisively shift the odds. But the Ukrainian military
needed many more of these combat vehicles, greater number of HIMARS rounds and
long-range missiles, and thousands of artillery shells. It also needed greater
engineering, amphibious, and logistics capacity to penetrate fortified Russian
defensive lines, clear hundreds of miles of occupied territory, and conduct amphibious
and ground assaults to cross into Crimea and dislodge Russian forces.
Most importantly, it needed air power to give it an air attack capability. Above all, it needed trained
manpower to handle these complex systems and integrate them.[2] This
was clearly lacking.
The fact is that the West dithered for months before
agreeing to supply the tanks and then took even longer to actually send them,
finally by end August there were only 87 Leopards and 14 Challengers and no
Abrams, which translates into a Brigade worth of armament. While converting from
Soviet origin to Western equipment is a challenge for the Ukrainian Army, there
are also restrictions imposed in their employment as these cannot be used on
Russian soil, hence the Surovikin Line could not be outflanked as was done to
the Maginot Line.
The impediments to achieving further success by the
Ukrainians are that the well dug in Russians are protected by multi layered
natural and artificial obstacles and with reserves suitably positioned to counter
any breach.
Advances are therefore likely to come at a much higher
price in terms of human costs due to the hardening of frontlines. Territorial
reclamation, undoubtedly important to Ukraine, appears unlikely as their
counter-offensive has been unable to break though the forward defences.[3]
Over eighteen months into the conflict and it seems
clear that Ukraine lacks the capacity even with external assistance to achieve
a decisive military victory. Regardless of how much territory they are able to re-capture,
which is presently negligible, they are unlikely to push Russia out of the
Donbas region and Crimea. Further, even if they do achieve success, the Russian
Army will continue to pose a permanent threat.[4]
As far as the Ukrainian War is concerned it is more
evident that the war is likely to end without a resolution to the territorial
issue as far as Ukraine is concerned and they may have to settle for the line
of contact being accepted as the de-facto border.
The Mounting Costs of Delaying a Resolution
Ukraine has witnessed scenes of soldiers facing each
other from mud trenches both in World War I and World War II. The costs of
those wars are well documented and need no reiteration. Ruined buildings and
infrastructure, collateral damage to the civil population and a wasteland due
to the artillery shelling and movement of armour in the wars. The conflicts in
the twenty-first century were meant to be fought using advanced technologies,
autonomous weapon systems and be played
out in space and cyberspace. But the stark reality lay elsewhere, ‘boots
on ground’ mattered the most.
In 1914 too, there was a sense of complacency in
Europe, it was assumed that countries were too advanced, too economically
integrated and too ‘civilised’ to resort to armed conflict. Wars were meant to
be fought on the peripheries of Europe or in colonial territories.
Unfortunately, in 2022 a similar mindset prevailed, wars were meant to be
fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya and not on mainland Europe.
Major power conflicts related to India and China but not Taiwan and China.
The World Wars also found both sides exhausting stocks
of ammunition meant to last for months in weeks and days. This resulted in
mobilization of their industries to focus on war production to ensure that the
armies could keep fighting. The strain on the economies was immense.
While there seems to be visible determination on the
part of the citizens of Ukraine to overcome the challenges and hardships of
war, the question that remains to be answered is how long can they bear the
cross of destruction of infrastructure, shortages of resources, cutting off of
ports, denial of airspace, population exodus and conscription of young able-bodied
workforce to make up the deficiencies in the Armed Forces.
The fact remains that the longer a war lasts the more
important allies and resources become, Ukraine depends on international support
for continuing its war whereas the resources of Russia are far greater to
sustain a conflict. Unfortunately, while Ukraine has many friends, none were
able to commit to join the fight as combatants. They are content with assistance
in the form of economic sanctions against Russia and providing intelligence,
armaments, training and logistics.
Clausewitz visualized the problems of waging war and
had written in ‘On War’ that “We must evaluate the political sympathies of
other states and the effect the war may have on them”.
In the days of globalisation and of economies being
intertwined, there is no doubt that the effect of the Ukrainian war is not
restricted merely to the combatants. Even if conflict were to cease, the
responsibility for rebuilding Ukraine and helping it get back on its feet has
staggering economic implications. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe and
integrated Germany and Italy into the ‘Allies’ leading on to them becoming key
members of NATO. One of the key reasons was that the West was now united
against an ideology that was ‘communism’ and they needed to counter that by
rebuilding Germany and Italy.
Today, there seems to be fatigue setting in regarding
shouldering an economic burden
that the conflict has imposed, the consequent growing disaffection amongst a
populace unwilling to cover the cost, the dangers of the proxy war escalating
and the EU being pulled into a war.
It seems impossible to visualize a vibrant economy as
far as Ukraine is concerned with sea ports blockaded, airspace closed and
infrastructure damaged. Russia has also suffered, though on a lesser scale, due
to the economic costs of waging a war and the sanctions imposed, though the
effect of the latter is ‘more of a bark than a bite’.[5]
Delaying a resolution is only multiplying the costs of
war in terms of human and economic terms. It is unlikely if the fundamentals
will change. It is also clear that as far as both sides are concerned there can
be no definite outcome as far as attaining their initial objectives are
concerned.
NATO now needs to work with Ukraine on a new strategy
that reflects military and political realities. To do otherwise would be to
recklessly gamble on Ukraine’s future.
Conclusion
Well into its second year and at a point when the two
boxers are once again going to be separated by Marshal Winter and General Mud
which makes attack near impossible in Spring and Autumn, the Russia – Ukrainian
War has panned out in the past year in a very different way than visualised and
expected. Instead of decisive battles there have been grindingly slow advances
where attrition rather than manoeuvre have dominated.
The truth remains that there cannot be unrealistic
assumptions about how easy it can be to overwhelm and defeat the enemy. Wars
rarely go as planned hence neither side can afford to persist with a war in a
hope of celebrating a victory purely on their terms.
The
unvarnished fact remains that as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight,
the West is benefitting as this has tied up the Russian forces and thereby
diminished the threat they pose. Unfortunately, it is in their interests to prolong
the war by bleeding Russia in this so called ‘cost effective’ manner.
In
1919 the French Prime Minister
Georges Clemenceau, said that; “Making peace is harder than waging war.”
Unfortunately, these words still echo with renewed significance and urgency
today.
Endnotes
[1] Miscalculations,
divisions marked offensive planning by U.S., Ukraine, Washington Posts
December 4, 2023 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/04/ukraine-counteroffensive-us-planning-russia-war/
[2] Alexander
Vindman, What Ukraine Needs to Liberate Crimea, February 2, 2023, Foreign
Affairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/what-ukraine-needs-to-liberate-crimea-alexander-vindman
[3] Thomas
Gibbons-Neff, Josh Holder and Marco Hernandez, 21 Miles of Obstacles, June 28,
2023, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/28/world/europe/ukraine-counteroffensive-obstacles.html
[4]
Maj Gen Jagatbir Singh, Neither Russia nor Ukraine will achieve one-sided
victory, Sunday Guardian, December 3, 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/world/neither-russia-nor-ukraine-will-achieve-one-sided-victory
[5] Infographic
- Impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, Council of the EU and the
European Council. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/
Major General Jagatbir Singh, VSM (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow at the USI of India. Commissioned in 1981 into the 18 Cavalry, he has held various important command and Staff appointments including command of an Armoured Division.
Article uploaded on 14-12-2023
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation that he belongs to or of the USI of India.