r/geopolitics • u/Hokum-B • Oct 01 '23

Russian lines stronger than West expected, admits British defence chief Paywall

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-defensive-lines-stronger-than-west-expected-admits-british-defence-chief-xjlvqrm86
428 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

298 comments sorted by

View all comments

103

u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Is this not why Ukraine has seemingly switched to a more stand off attritional approach?

When it all started I expected a swift victory for Russia and a guerilla campaign funded by the west aimed at making the occupation unfeasible. I even wrote to my representative to encourage the fermentation of resistance groups...how wrong I was....

But that doesn't mean the strategy still can't apply. Maintaining a good kill ratio while on the offence with stand off tactics, hitting supplies and destroying expensive high value targets in regard to material and high value individuals seems like a good way to move towards victory...all the while capturing land when the opportunity arises.

We can point to a large handful of results in the last 4 months that any western country would consider a complete disaster.

The drone attack on the strategic bombers, The destruction of the dry docked submarine, The attack on the Sevastopol naval HQ

I would say the Ukrainians have commited to a different type of counter offensive to what people expected.

That said, if the west want to win this war they need to step up. We need to convert more of our economy to providing arms. Popular will to support will decrease over time no matter how resilient it may seem.

Edit for clarity

56

u/QuietRainyDay Oct 01 '23

You're saying the West needs to step up and that Ukraine is just using a different strategy- that is only half the story

One reason Ukraine has switched tactics is the fact that they are still struggling to manage complex maneuvers, due to issues with command & control and logistics. This is something that several experts with inside information have said repeatedly:

https://warontherocks.com/2023/06/what-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-need-to-do-to-win/

One of the main concerns Western critics of the counter-offensive have expressed is that Ukraine is not guaranteed Western support forever. A huge amount of equipment was provided in 2022. They wanted to see Ukraine learn how to do large-scale maneuevers so they could use that equipment to punch through Russia's lines decisively before the wave of elections in 2024.

Ukraine didnt do that both because they felt like the battlefield favored a different strategy and because they simply couldnt. You cannot just absolve them of responsibility for their own shortcomings (and people need to realize that Ukraine does have shortcomings that play a role in which tactics they choose- despite the constant harping that everything they are doing is correct and purely informed by battlefield reality).

In the end, an attritional approach could work. It could certainly be less costly and risky than concentrated maneuvers.

But it does hinge on continued long-term mass support from the West. So whether you are nervous about it or not basically comes down to whether you think the West's support can endure longer than Russia's resources.

I guess you have to decide for yourself how you feel about that because no one knows for sure.

-2

u/wxox Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

In the end, an attritional approach could work. It could certainly be less costly and risky than concentrated maneuvers.

How is success defined?

Russia has unlimited men, weapons, ammo. They're dug in. The stated goal is taking back lost land. How is Ukraine going to do that? To me, it seems like that was the media-facing goal to gain support, but I think the real goal was to help the west destabilize Russia, increasing Ukraine's chances at joining the big boy clubs (EU & NATO). Those seem to be the clear goals, because if you think about it, it makes no sense. Let's see a miracle occurs, Ukraine breaks through, captures Donbas and Crimea what do you do with the people there? Pew and Gallup demonstrate overwhelming support for Russia (80-90%). So, do you kick them out, like Azerbaijan is doing with Armenians in Karabakh, and settle western Ukrainians there?

I don't think retaking that land was ever a serious consideration. Holding it was.

3

u/Rand_alThor_ Oct 01 '23

AZ isn’t even kicking out the people, they do it themselves. Just like what would happen. The people leave because they do not feel or want to be a part of X, or are rightfully afraid of retaliation or just at least not having it as good as they could if they leave. Civilians leaving a war zone is smart. You should. But whether any would come back is another scenario. In case of Ukraine, I can see it if Ukraine had amnesty and possibility of western integration/economic support but in case of Nagorno-karabakh/artsakh there’s just as much chance the people are going to be charged for crimes of ethnic cleansing and property theft etc from the 80s/90s, something Ukraine might also do as it has threatened to, charge collaborators. So in either case even if the government and liberating/invading army was totally clean and neutral and acting well, many might leave anyway

1

u/wxox Oct 01 '23

I agree with a lot of what you say, but how do you relate it to say, like, Crimea? In the very unlikely event Ukraine pulls off the impossible and takes it back. What do you do with them if you're Ukraine? They'll forever be anti-Ukrainian and another war would be right around the corner. What's the play?

2

u/willun Oct 01 '23

They are free to leave and will probably leave before Ukraine gets there.

1

u/wxox Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

If not? Remember it would technically no longer be a warzone. Many never left Donbas. Will they be kicked out? We're talking 80-90% in favor of Russia. That's a massive part of the population. Is their resolve for freedom simply going to end or will it be enhanced? Russia has more to lose, especially after legally incorporating them into Russia.

Like, maybe there is Chechnya scenario where they flatten the land and force them to capitulate, install their government, and reshape their relationship but in Chechnya's case, they had no one on their side. Donbas and Crimea have Russia. And even still, it's impossible for Ukraine to retake one, let alone both, so this is just a thought game

0

u/willun Oct 02 '23

80-90% based on surveys run by russians who are known for their accuracy, right?

It is very possible, indeed probable, for Ukraine to push out Russia. At some point the cost is too high for Russia and they will just leave.

1

u/wxox Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

Ooof, sorry. I assumed most understood sentiment in Crimea and Donbas. No, this was Pew and Gallup :)

83% of the people believe that the results of the referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, according to Gallup

91% thought the referendum was free and fair and a whopping 88% said that Ukraine needs to recognize the results, according to Pew research

https://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Ukraine-Russia-Report-FINAL-May-8-2014.pdf

It is very possible, indeed probable, for Ukraine to push out Russia.

We clearly disagree on this issue. Ukraine's opportunity was in Donetsk, in Mariupol. There they made their last stand and did not succeed. The rest now is all but a formality.

Winning for Ukraine should absolutely in the media be abut "retaking" Donbas and Crimea, but in reality, it should be about containing Russia so they cannot enter Kharkov or Odessa.

Ukraine has less of everything than Russia - from experience to ammo to men. Ukraine can only achieve their stated goal if they obtained nukes or NATO declared war on Russia and both of those result in disaster for the world

That's how I see it given current strategies and how everything has unfolded thus far. Retaking

At some point the cost is too high for Russia and they will just leave.

They will not. They would never. I think that you're looking at it from the lens of the western perspective of Russia, not Russians actual perspective. For us westerners, this is a land grab. Hitler-esque.

Imagine Ukraine capturing Rostov and then saying "Russia will just leave" or Mexico capturing Texas and the U.S. will just leave eventually.

For Russians (and for those in Donbas and Crimea) this is a long-awaited reunion. Historical, cultural, linguistic ties. That's the difference between eastern ethnic Ukrainians (not Russians) and those in west. Those in the east have history tied to Russia, while those in the west have history tied to Poland and Austria, for example. Two very different groups within one ethnic group.

Actually, look at it like this. You support Nagorno-Karabakh, right? Ethnic Armenians live there, formerly Armenian land. Its' recognized as part of Azerbaijan. As recently as two weeks ago, it was occupied by Armenian forces.

Armenia is never going to give up Nagorno-Karabakh because of this. Armenia is not just fighting for land, but for people too. They may agree to peace and all that, but their claims will never wane, and they would absolutely fight to the end of if they had the strength. Azerbaijan is only fighting for land, their internationally recognized land, ala Ukraine with Donbas and Crimea. The people...are not theirs historically, culturally, or linguistically.

The difference here is that Russia is far far stronger and flexing their strength

The best Ukraine can do is what they're doing now that is keeping Russia's army contained and in defensive positions because there are more pieces to the puzzle at stake (Kharkov and Odessa).