Painful Month for Russia in Ukraine

Putin Now Facing Growing Pressure to Escalate

I have written extensively about the futility of the war for Ukraine.  It is a heartbreaking senseless loss of life that will only pay dividends for evil.  My position that this war is fundamentally unwinnable for Ukraine has not changed.  With that in mind, I want to shift and discuss the Russian situation tonight.  War has a way of humbling the mighty and Russia is no exception.  It too has had its share of failures to address.  Bias is blindness and a rigid adherence to an all good or all bad spin is a sure way to set oneself up for failure and embarrassment.  Ask Hillary Clinton.  In warfare, it is critical that an analyst remain as neutral and unbiased as possible when making assessments or miscalculations and disasters can result.  Despite what staunch pro-Russian pundits want to claim, this has been a very bad month for Russia.  Worse yet, regardless of the actual military reality, there is a growing perception Russian President Putin and his military are dangerously weak.  Russia’s red lines have been brazenly crossed and Russia has so far failed to make good on its threats of retaliation.  This has only emboldened NATO and the Ukraine to press Russia harder.  Arguably, this is also emboldening Russian hardliners demanding escalation, which erodes Putin’s political strength and could ultimately jeopardize his presidency.  The confluence of these factors creates what I have repeatedly warned of…a dangerous potential for rapid escalation and direct conflict with NATO.  We do not know where Russia’s true red lines are, but there is a point where Russia will no longer be willing to accept these losses and make good on its threats.  On this last point, let me be clear.  As I have repeatedly warned, contrary to what anyone else tells you, if Russia gets to the point that it can no longer tolerate losses, this war will go nuclear.

Let’s start the Russian bad news with the fact that despite inflicting heavy casualties on Ukrainian forces that are unsustainable, Russia was pushed back from a number of positions along the front.  I am well aware of how to employ a defense in depth as well as an economy of force operation.  Russia has been doing both well and inflicting significant costs on Ukraine for every meter of ground it has taken.  However, when you dig in and fight over small patches of land for months and lose thousands of men in the process, you can no longer claim this is an economy of force operation.  In an economy of force operation, you would use the minimum numbers to delay and or hold back the enemy.  However, at some point, as you feed in more and more reinforcements, the “economy” factor is lost, and it is just a battle you must win.  However, after months of brutal combat, Russia has been pushed out of positions it fought doggedly to hold.  That is called a defeat no matter how you try to spin it.  You don’t fight that hard and lose that many men for ground that is insignificant unless your commanders are incompetent fools.  In addition, when you commit fully to the fight in this manner, you do what is necessary to win.  When a salient is opened that allows the enemy access to more vital terrain, you must rapidly close it before the enemy can consolidate its hold on the territory and dig in.  In multiple locations, Russia failed to effectively counterattack, and retake lost areas.  I’d also point out to the spinsters claiming this is all a plan to minimize Russian losses that these are areas Russia will have to again capture resulting in even more casualties than what would have been necessary to hold the ground if Russia is to come anywhere close to defeating Ukraine.  If Russia had reserves available, it makes no sense to refuse to commit them to hold ground that it decided to fight over for months.  I can theorize on several reasons for not committing the forces necessary, such as a buildup for a larger offensive elsewhere, but the fact remains Russia didn’t and lost hard fought ground to Ukrainian forces.  It is important to note that these losses are far from catastrophic.  For perspective, Western pundits had actually predicted Ukrainian forces making these gains in just the first hours or few days of the offensive’s start.  Instead, Russia stopped their forces cold and ground them into a pulp along the frontage of their defensive lines.  Still though, Russia has not managed to capitalize on an exhausted Ukrainian force and push them back allowing Ukraine to gain both the initiative and momentum, which Russia can ill afford.  Considering the above, despite the gains being costly and small for Ukraine, Russia has suffered a string of defeats in the last few weeks and has been forced to cede a growing amount of territory back to Ukraine.  This has given Ukraine the needed propaganda victories, even if temporary, and made the Russian military look weak and vulnerable. 

Next up for Russia’s faltering image have been Ukraine’s highly effective use of NATO supplied missiles despite Russia’s threats to immediately strike decision making centers should Ukraine use them outside the zone of the Special Military Operation.  Well, Ukraine has definitely called that bluff and so far with impunity making Russia look weak and incapable.  The Ukrainians, using a variety of these missiles and drones, have operated with what appears to be impunity across Crimea wrecking critical targets despite Russian claims of “effective” use of air defense against the “other” missiles and drones allegedly intercepted.  A modern Russian submarine, a troop transport, and the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet are all part of the growing list of casualties inflicted by the British and French Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles respectively.  It’s not even worth debating whether these locations were completely destroyed or just “damaged.”  The fact is Russia failed to prevent them being hit with extreme precision by Ukraine in broad daylight and they are very badly damaged if not utterly destroyed.  Further, I have heard at least one pro-Russian commentator minimizing these strikes and claiming that the commanders of the Black Sea Fleet were never in the headquarters building and were in deep bunkers instead.  I say fine, let’s see the commanders.  Ukraine has claimed to have killed at least one very senior admiral so if he’s alive, it would be pretty easy to discredit Ukraine’s claims, but to date, nothing of the such has emerged so I am inclined to believe Ukraine.  In addition, HIMARS attacks have knocked out advanced Russian air defense systems, artillery, munitions depots, and other high value targets.  Again, the pundits try to minimize these losses as insignificant to the big picture.  However, when enough of these attacks are successful, especially against low density high value systems like Russia’s S-400 air defense system, it does have a significant impact both politically and militarily.  These losses are mounting and to deny the impact of the damage to Russia is absurd and smacks of a blind bias in rational analysis.  I would point out that if Russia had successfully destroyed Ukraine’s air force and their associated air bases, Ukraine would be incapable of launching SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles.  The fact they haven’t is honestly not defendable.  This same logic applies to the NATO supplied HIMARS systems.  If Russia was fully capable, it should have destroyed the equipment the second it entered Ukraine or at least wiped it out while stored in various weapons depots or as it was deployed into combat.  Again, don’t get me wrong, Russia has destroyed a vast number of planes, launchers, and ammo stockpiles, but they have not wiped them out.  Wiping them out is exactly what needs to be done and so far, Russia has proven incapable.  I’d say unwilling, but they have sustained far too much damage to claim this was simply due to a decision to “not” strike those targets.  They are straight-forward military targets that if destroyed, stood no chance of escalating the conflict beyond the borders of Ukraine.  I know NATO has pulled every trick in the book to get these weapon systems into Ukraine, but Russia has left rail lines, bridges, and border crossings not just intact, but untouched.  Further, Ukraine isn’t able to hide airfields.  Russia knows exactly where they are yet has not been able to pummel them out of operation.  Again, taken in totality, I see weakness and vulnerability.  This is blood in the water and the sharks are circling. 

The last issue I want to highlight has been the Ukraine’s effective use of drone strikes against high value Russian targets.  On sea, Ukraine has scored hits using surface drones against both the Kerch bridge and Russian navy ships.  The effective use of these drones appears to have forced the Russian navy to hide in port or steer well away from the shores of Ukraine.  Further, it appears to have forced the Russians to walk back their threats to stop ships in the Black Sea attempting to access Ukrainian ports.  Russia was also humiliated as NATO conducted an incredibly reckless and provocative naval exercise in the Black Sea and effectively dared Russia to stop it.  Respective of aerial drones, Ukraine has for some time mainly conducted legitimately insignificant token strikes inside Russia for propaganda purposes. That all changed when Ukraine was able to destroy Russian fighter jets and strategic bombers.  For Russia’s part, this was again inexcusable.  The fact strategic bombers and fighter aircraft were left in the open on a flight line a year and a half into this war is pure dereliction of duty on the part of the airbase commanders and they should be court martialed for their incompetence.  Had they been sheltered in even big tents; the drone strikes would likely have been ineffective.  Then there are the small drone strikes along the front that are absolutely decimating Russian armor, artillery, and troop positions.  I have to study the death porn all over social media as much as it disgusts and saddens me so that I can formulate some level of ground truth.  The reality is both Russia and Ukraine have finally made the leap and stepped up their drone games.  Russia is hammering Ukraine too with drones, but it doesn’t exonerate them from the fact they have utterly failed to provide even minimal force protection from drones.  I am aware of new Russian weapons in a range of areas such as lasers, electronic warfare, and active protective systems (APS) that should be appearing as soon as this fall on the battlefield to help mitigate this threat.  However, they are not there yet and should have been developed and fielded long before this war began if the high command was the least bit competent and forward thinking.  In the interim, every single artillery position should have been set up with at least chicken wire cages to provide some stand-off from drones.  Further, armor should already be using modified APS to interdict drone strikes.  Finally, there should be much more robust drone identification, tracking, hunting and/or air defense interdiction capabilities and operations.  These are not pie in the sky expectations.  If I was able to see this trend and preach a proactive approach two decades in advance, then certainly any competent military would have also.  Russia has the technological expertise to produce and field all of these systems so again, what’s the problem?  Even if Russia wouldn’t commit more troops because it is staging them for a major offensive elsewhere and wouldn’t respond to missile strikes out of fear of escalation, there is just no good reason to not have been prepared for the widespread use of drones in warfare and have fielded effective countermeasures at this point in the war.  Russia is taking huge losses as a result and again, contrary to the pro-Russia pundits, this is having a serious impact and has measurably degraded the Russian military forces.  This brings us back to perception.  Fact or not, this makes Russia look weak and vulnerable.

The three areas I highlighted are not insignificant.  They are a big problem for Russia and the Russian military.  Combined, they still don’t appear to pose a catastrophic threat or one that threatens the collapse of the Russian military because Russia is so far able to replace the losses in both men and materials.  Further, based on current burn rates, Ukraine is nearing complete exhaustion of men and materials while Russia still has a significant reserve that has so far been untouched.  However, the combined attacks are causing serious losses the military can ill afford.  Russia must stop these bleeds, or they could worsen to the point of posing a real threat to Russia’s military.  This is all very concerning and conveys weakness, which has emboldened NATO and the Ukraine to ratchet up the attacks and pressure despite Russia’s exhaustive warnings.  Remember, NATO is directly responsible for supplying Ukraine with these weapons and aiding in their employment by providing intelligence and targeting information.  NATO is also providing direct support to aid in the maintenance and use of these weapons systems.  This makes NATO a direct party to the conflict and Russia, under the Law of War, is fully justified in retaliating against NATO.  Most recently, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said as much at the U.N.  Lavrov made it clear that the world was playing a dangerous game and Russia is now in a direct war with NATO, which seeks a strategic defeat of Russia.  In case you didn’t catch what Lavrov just laid out in diplomatic language, he was laying the groundwork for the justification of a Russian attack against NATO. 

No one outside of Russia’s leadership truly knows just how much Russia is willing or able to take when it comes to this war.  I don’t think Russia is going to let us know either before they do strike back if forced.  Russia has already exhausted themselves with warnings and now look weak because they have failed to make good on their threats.  I can’t imagine Russia will continue to give just warnings for much longer.  This appearance of weakness is very dangerous for Putin at home as well.  Hardliners have long criticized Putin for being too discriminating in his use of force and believe he should unleash everything on Ukraine and then NATO.  Putin is extremely intelligent and disciplined so it is perhaps impossible for someone with a lower IQ and impulsive populist or reactionary tendencies to fully understand his strategy and mindset.  Unfortunately, this is both a strength and a weakness for Putin because he is in danger of losing popular support even if his strategy would prove to be successful (I believe Putin knows that despite the losses and embarrassment, it is still far better to avoid escalation and to keep the war inside Ukraine where they can defeat NATO piecemeal).  This means he is feeling increasing pressure to escalate the conflict in a major way or risk losing power.  I’ll repeat myself.  We don’t know where the points of domestic political pressure meet military necessity, but we have to be dangerously close.  If NATO continues to press though, they will remove any discretion Putin has left with his government and military to constrain the conflict.  Russia will not tolerate the losses and humiliation forever.  If Russia is holding back, then they may sustain this conflict well into next year.  If, however, Russia is truly becoming incapable of stopping Ukrainian attacks and starts to fear serious breakthroughs along the front and takes heavy losses, then we are going to wakeup to our worst nightmare.  Russia will be forced to annihilate Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.  At that point, it will be NATO’s bluff that will be called.  Will they enter the war ensuring a full-scale strategic use of nuclear weapons or will Europe blink and call for an immediate end to the conflict?  I don’t want to find out, but at this rate, we will soon.

As always, please feel free to ping me with specific questions.  I do try to answer them the best I can with the limited time I have available.  And as always, please remember to share my articles and thank you for your support.

Till next time,

D.t.Y.