Regular readers of my Substack might remember that I have written a few posts about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consider this as another one in that series, more specifically a continuation of what I discussed in two previous posts (link 1 and link 2). Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been going on for two months now, this is a good time to talk about the long term strategy driving their actions. Can we understand Russian strategy by looking at how they have prosecuted the war against Ukraine? As it turns out, a careful and cynical analysis of Russian actions in this war does provide a very interesting insight into their long term strategy. What I am about to say can be best understood by studying the actions which “credentialed” western military “experts” consider as proof of Russian incompetence.
Claim #1: Russia not going full “shock and awe” by using overwhelming military force to make Ukraine capitulate within 2-3 weeks is a sign of their incompetence or lack of military capability.
Analysis of Claim #1: Anybody who still sincerely believes that Russia intended to make Ukraine capitulate within a short period of time is either an idiot or has spent too much time watching Hollywood “war” and “superhero” movies. If you think about it, carefully, you will quickly realize that doing so was the worst possible option for Russia. But why? Well.. for starters, a quick capitulation of Ukraine would not change the trajectory of this long-standing conflict. As I have mentioned in more than one previous post (including this one) the current conflict started at least 8 years ago in 2014, in the aftermath of the last major western-led coup in Ukraine. Some might say that the current conflict can trace its roots to 2004 western-led coup in that country.
Over the past 8, or 18, years there have been numerous attempts by Russia to reach some sort of understanding with multiple Ukrainian governments to make them understand that becoming part of NATO or having close military ties with the West would result in military conflict. While numerous official, and unofficial, agreements were made between the two countries- none of them lasted for more than a couple of years. Each and every time, Ukrainian government either slowly started to ignore them or were replaced by a more pro-western one who pretended those agreements did not exist. A quick victory by Russia, using overwhelming force, would not have changed this dynamic as any treaty or agreement signed by Ukraine right now would be ignored by them within a couple of years and we would return to square one.
The only way out of this impasse was for Russia to permanently break apart Ukraine such that the resource-rich and ethnically more Russian areas would form a separate Russia-friendly country leaving behind a poor and landlocked rump-state in western half of Ukraine. A quick victory by Russia would necessitate a withdrawal within 1-2 years or a prolonged costly occupation in the western parts of Ukraine. On the other hand, an occupation of eastern and coastal Ukraine (areas with significant percentage of ethnic Russians) followed by a plebiscite and formation of one or more client states would be much easier, less expensive and cause far fewer headaches in the future. Of course, there would be some mild ethnic cleansing of non-Russians from the occupied areas- but that would be fairly easy for reasons I will go into later.
But what does this have to do with the Russian preference for a slow grinding and bloody conflict rather than a quick western style “victory”? The answer is easy, but cold-blooded. A slow grinding and bloody conflict allows Russia to use it much larger size and military resources to kill as many professional Ukrainian soldiers as possible in addition to causing deep-seated damage to the military and industrial capability of whatever is left of Ukraine. It also makes it impossible for future leaders of whatever is left of Ukraine to claim that they were not thoroughly beaten on the battlefield. The end result that Russia wants is a rump Ukraine which has been thoroughly defeated , with most of its experienced soldiers dead, a large percentage of its young population gone to other countries and a deeply damaged economy totally beholden to the West. This was is about destroying the idea of Ukraine as it existed between 1991 and 2022.
Claim #2: Russia not quickly destroying the civilian infrastructure and transport in Ukraine shows that they do not have foresight or military capability to do so.
Analysis of Claim #2: Despite the obvious risks associated with not destroying the civilian and transport infrastructure in Ukraine, there is an important reason that Russia chose to keep it mostly intact. And the reason is.. it allowed many millions of Ukrainians (2-5 million) to get out of that country and become refugees. But what is in for Russia, you might ask. The thing is Ukraine’s population had already dropped by almost 7 million (about 15%) between 1995 and 2020- largely due to emigration, very low rates of fertility and premature deaths caused by neoliberal policies forced upon that country. Consequently Ukraine, even before 2022, was getting increasingly full of older pensioners because its younger and ambitious residents had left in droves. Being a corrupt and dysfunctional country without tons of natural resources did not help.
This war greatly sped up that process, especially in the western parts of that country. Don’t forget that most of refugees are young women, children and younger men. How many of them will return to an economically shattered and physically damaged rump state after this war is over? So what is the future for whatever remains of Ukraine? I am sure that some of them will send remittances to their aging parents and relatives or travel to visit them once in a while, but that is it. Now ask yourself, where are the newer cohorts of young people necessary to run things and generate economic activity going to come from? Keeping the infrastructure mostly undamaged was a genius (if risky) move by Russia because it allowed the best hope for Ukraine’s future to escape, and most of them will never return- except for occasional visits and vacations.
Allowing millions of Ukrainian refugees to escape that country also creates massive headaches for surrounding countries, especially Poland. Then there are the millions of internal refugees in Ukraine, who are also mostly non-Russians from the eastern parts of that country. Most of them have moved westwards, which makes the job of creating Russia-friendly client states that much easier. That is what I meant by ‘mild ethnic’ cleansing in an earlier part of this post. Now that most of those who wanted to escape have done so, Russia is starting to destroy the transportation and other infrastructure used by Ukrainians to fuel their war effort. To be clear, I am not saying any of this is humane or “right”, but as part of a strategy for achieving a specific end point- namely, destruction of Ukraine as it existed between 1991-2022, it is brilliant. And this is why you should always look carefully at what people do rather than what they say.
What do you think? Comments?
This post is just Russian propaganda trying to cover up how badly their war in Ukraine is going and how their forces were defeated trying to take Kyiv.
“Anybody who still sincerely believes that Russia intended to make Ukraine capitulate within a short period of time is either an idiot or has spent too much time watching Hollywood “war” and “superhero” movies.”
Russia did have a plan to quickly defeat Ukraine, similar to what the Soviet Union used in Hungry in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
On the morning of Feb 24 about 30 helicopters carried around 1000 elite forces to seize the Antonov Airport near Hostomel which is north west of Kyiv. A few of the helicopters were shot down, but the Russians were able to quickly take control of the airport. The plan then called for the Russians to fly in 7000 more troops with light armored vehicles on IL 76 transport jets for a quick dash into Kyiv to seize government buildings and the TV stations. They would then declare victory on Ukrainian TV and they hoped the Ukrainian resistance would collapse. However the Ukrainian military counter attacked the airport on Feb 24 and control of the airport was contested when the IL 76 transports arrived over the airport. There were reports that two of IL 76s were shot down, but the wreckage has never been found so this is unlikely. It is possible some of the IL 76s were damaged trying to land. What is known is that the landing at Antonov Airport was aborted and they were diverted to airfields in Belarus. On the evening of Feb 24-25 the Ukrainians sent additional forces to Antonov Airport and regained control of the Airport. Knowing that a large invasion was underway, this force destroyed the runways at Antonov so it was no longer usable as an airfield.
On Feb 25 the Russians organize about 200 helicopter in Belarus to carry most of the 7000 man force that had been diverted to Belarus for another assault on the Antonov airport. They were able to recapture the airport, but the runways were no longer usable. The Ukrainian defenders were able to encircle the airport and prevent this lightly armored force from breaking out from the airport.
The plan for the quick victory had failed, but Russia had a plan B for Kyiv. In parallel with the quick plan, Russia sent a heavily armored force that is estimated at 70,000 men, 2000 tanks and thousands more armored vehicles in from Belarus. By the evening of Feb 24 this force had arrived near Hostomel. The plan was to send a convoy of supply vehicles to refuel the armored vehicles and then divided the force to move South and East to surround Kyiv, cut it off and begin bombarding it with artillery until it surrendered. If they were refueled they would have enough fuel to complete the encirclement of Kyiv. The resupply convoy for this force was the famous 40 mile convoy. It got close to the force near Hostomel, but a small force of Ukrainian commandos that specialized in combat in the swampy forests in that area somehow kept the convoy from getting to the refueling area. The details of how they delayed this convoy are not entirely clear. At some point the Ukrainians also destroyed some bridges that prevented the heavy cargo trucks from crossing rivers requiring the Russians to bring in bridging equipment causing more delay. It was not until about March 14 that the Russians were able to refuel the force near Hostomel using a number of small convoys on different routes.
While this force was waiting to refuel, it started an assault on Irpin which is a suburb about 11 miles from Kyiv. The Battle for Irpin lasted a month and Ukrainian defense forces recaptured all of Irpin on March 28.
The long delay in refueling and resupplying this force gave the Ukrainians time to figure out exactly what the Russians were planning to do and build defenses and deploy forces to block them. On about March 16 the refueled Russian forces tried to finally move to encircle Kyiv. Since they were blocked in Irpin they tried to move west towards Makariv and East towards Vyshhorod. The Ukrainians had well prepared defenses in both of those locations. Ukraine destroyed many of the armored vehicles and repulsed these attacks. During the attack on Makariv Ukraine hit the command post for the entire force and wounded the General commanding the forces.
With perhaps half of the 70,000 man force wounded or killed and much of the armor destroyed, this force retreated back to Belarus at the end of March.
You are trying to make people forget that the Russian forces that attacked Kyiv were decisively defeated by claiming it would not have made sense to try to do that. The plan to concentrate the war in the East and South is the backup plan to salvage something.
“Over the past 8, or 18, years there have been numerous attempts by Russia to reach some sort of understanding with multiple Ukrainian governments to make them understand that becoming part of NATO or having close military ties with the West would result in military conflict.”
What you are saying is that Ukraine is not a real country. It does not have the right to defend itself against Russian attacks. It must remain militarily weak enough that Russia can roll its army in anytime it wants to take over.
This is total BS.
NATO is not a threat to Russia. NATO is a 30+ country self defense agreement. Do you really think that the 30 NATO countries are going to get together and decide to invade Russia? There is a long history of failed European invasions of Russia and that was before Russia had nuclear weapons. The idea of NATO invading Russia is ridiculous.
The argument that Russia cannot tolerate NATO countries right on it border is nonsense. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all NATO countries on Russia’s border already. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gotten several non-NATO countries on or near Russia’s border interested in joining NATO.
Russia’s problem with NATO is that it would be much riskier for Russia to invade a NATO country because then US, Germany, France, and England might really send forces with advanced weaponry and air power that the Russian Army is not prepared to deal with. The Russian Army seems to have its hands full right now even dealing with Ukraine.
Putin even said in his speech at the start of the war that Ukraine is not really a country that has a right to exist. That is what this war is about. Putin is trying to recreate the Russian empire and he believes that he alone should be able to decide what countries are allowed to exist on Russia’s border.