Current Russia strategy is pretty evident: Use the window of opportunity before US & EUR arms arrive in large volumes to stretch Ukrainian forces across a ~600 mile front that extends from the Kharkiv sector in the north to Krynky in Kherson. 1/13
This is clear from the positioning of RUS forces in the sectors facing (for eg) Krynky; Rabotyne; Velyka Novosilka, Vuhledar; Krasnohorivka; areas west and northwest of Avdiivka; Yampolivka; Terny; and Kharkiv. 2/13
That’s a lot for UKR to cope with amidst a deficit in troops and equipment, especially artillery. Then there’s the challenge of using scarce air defense to protect troops at the front while also defending cities. 3/13
Some big questions: Can RUS concentrate enough well-trained troops (kontraktniki as opposed to green mobiks) & advanced equipment to make a big, decisive breakthrough? 4/13
RUS has been pulling decades-old tanks, IFVs, APCs from storage & turning to N Korea (and even Iran) for artillery. How long before this tactic runs aground because old, less advanced equipment is more vulnerable and storage supplies are not inexhaustible? 5/13
Relatedly, for how long can RUS sustain the current high tempo of operations along so many points at once—and amidst significant troop and equipment losses? 6/13
When and how quickly will the arrival of Western equipment (esp artilery, missiles, and air defenses) shift the advantage to UKR? 7/13
Perhaps more importantly, how long will it take for UKR’s ongoing draft to prepare well-trained and fresh brigades to send to the front—and armed with incoming Western equipment? 8/13
Will the numerical advantage always work to RUS advantage? (Not necessarily. It can fail and indeed produce large losses: Consider, for example, the repeated RUS attacks on Krynky—which just about everyone said UKR could never hold—and Vuhledar.) 9/13
We won’t have the answers to these questions for a month or two. Meanwhile, UKR will face intense RUS attacks at various points along the front as well as RUS use of glide bombs, missiles, & drones against cities, esp. Kharkiv—plus attacks on UKR energy infrastructure. 10/13
One thing is clear from what we are seeing: Yes, UKR has problems. Analysts spend lots of time enumerating them. But the common claim that RUS has an all but inexhaustible supply of well-trained troops & abundant high-end arms should be questioned, not accepted as a given. 11/13
It’s premature at best to conclude that what we’re seeing now is a turning point—that the RUS offensive has now become unstoppable. As yet there have been no decisive RUS breakthroughs on the front since Avdiivka fell, back in Feb. 12/13
Bottom line: In a war that has often confounded predictions, there remains much that we don’t know and can’t reliably foresee to able to make confident predictions. 12/13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/4 🧵Many see Avdiivka’s fall as proof that Russia’s superiority in firepower & troops has turned the tide against Ukraine. RUS has made some gains west of Avdiivka, but on other fronts (Krynky, Rabotyne, Bakhmut, Kupiansk) RUS losses have been high & offensives unsuccessful.
2/4 Many assessments stress that superiority in numbers ensures that the Russian army will prove impossible for Ukraine to stop and that Ukraine is headed for defeat—soon. They also dwell on Ukraine’s various problems (which certainly exist).
3/4 What they fail to do, however, is to account for the stunning magnitude of Russian casualties & equipment losses and Ukraine’s staying power two-plus years into a war that just about everyone believed Russia would win quickly.
1/14 Recent analyses of the war in Ukraine, even in top magazines such @ForeignAffairs, contain debatable claims. Below are four examples: đź§µ
2/ ONE: Among the reasons Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed was the failure to concentrate the bulk of its forces at one point on the southern front rather than dispersing them. But the front is 600 miles long & Russia, with a far bigger army, had massed for attack at various
3/ points along it. Had Ukraine not deployed forces to defend those other points, the Russians would have broken through—and kept going.
i) Despite an vast advantage in firepower (eg: ~5:1 heavy self-propelled howitzers and nearly 7:1 in MLRS and drones) RUS’s net territorial gain in 2023 was all of ~100 miles by late fall and losses substantial—a poor showing
2/for the world’s 2d-most powerful military.
ii) UKR’s counteroffensive (CF), hyped by UKR and the US, albeit for different reasons, didn’t achieve much. But it could never have. The southern front, the focus of the CF, is largely flat.
3/ Such terrain makes advancing UKR armored & mechanized forces extremely vulnerable to artillery, air strikes (helicopters and fixed wing aircraft), and drones. Plus RUS had mined the area thoroughly, built layered defense lines (the “Surovikin lines”) & had air superiority.
1/7 A recent @nytimes piece described withering RUS attacks against the bridgehead UKR marines have created at Krynky, on the left (RUS-held) bank of the Dnipro, ~20 mls. upstream from Kherson. Russian attacks on Krynky have certainly been intense and UKR has paid a steep price.
2/ RUS has, for example, used SU-34 fighter-bombers to release glide bombs from afar against Krynky, as well as tanks, IFVs, artillery, & TOS-1 thermobaric rocket launchers. But—and this is the key point—it’s not a one-way fight, which is how @nytimes paints it.
3/ UKR forces on the Dnipro’s right-bank across from Krinsky occupy high ground. They’ve used that advantage to train tank and artillery fire at RUS tanks, IFVs, & infantry units. UKR’s defense of Krynky has also used drones to spot and target RUS units and equipment.
2/ i) “Winning” is never defined in the piece. Consider land gained. Ukraine has regained +50% of the land it lost since the March 2022 invasion. As for net territorial gains in 2023, Russia comes out ahead—but with a mere 200 square miles.
3/ii) Between late March and early November 2022, Ukraine forced the Russian army out of the north and Kharkiv province, plus the portion of Kherson provinces on the Dnipro’s right bank.
An @AP &NORC poll shows nearly 50% of Americans think too much $ is being spent on aid to Ukraine. Add to that the ⬆️ pervasive narrative that Ukraine’s stalled counteroffensive proves it can’t win & must cut a deal with Russia.
2/ Ukraine certainly has military problems. But it’s not as if Russia has had wild success: it’s barely gained any ground since early Oct 2022 despite massive advantages in every variable germane to war, save morale and generalship.
3/ The much bigger problem Ukraine faces is political. The U.S. in particular oscillated between its professed commitment to Ukraine’s success and its fear of escalation. So, the F-16s that were originally denied to Ukraine were approved—but halfway into the counteroffensive.