UKRAINE. THE ITCH PUTIN MUST SCRATCH.
Hiya
I’ve been asked by enough people to comment on the Russia/Ukraine situation to have a crack. Actually, I considered doing this more than a week ago but then my MacBook’s logic board gave me the middle finger and checked out, which postponed a few things, this included. To be honest, I thought events would make the writing of it redundant.
A few final words before I launch into this brief essay. I feel I have to tell you that I don't know any more than anyone else about this situation, and undoubtedly less than some. I am, though, a voracious consumer of news. I've researched Russia long and hard – its politics and history — for a couple of novels. I've also traveled extensively there across all its time zones and so have a feel for the people. None of that qualifies me as an expert on Russia, mind, but it does inform any insights I might have.
In short, what you’re about to read is just my personal opinion.
THE RUSSIAN BUILDUP ON UKRAINE’S BORDER. FACT OR FANTASY?
A man assaults you with a knife, cuts you several times so that you bleed profusely, and then holds the knife against your jugular.
You say to this guy, “Are you now gonna kill me with that knife?”
He replies, “What knife?”
That’s the best analogy I can think of to illustrate the frankly bizarre denial President Vladimir Putin asserts for the Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s border. Invasion? What invasion?
Russian troops stormed into Crimea and Putin then annexed it.
Russian money, arms, training, and PMC Wagner troops (essentially off-the-books Russian military) have empowered Russian separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas area (a region in the country’s southeast on the border with Russia) to establish Russian-sympathetic breakaway states. The fighting there that began in 2014 continues. To date, estimates are that over 14,000 Ukrainian citizens have been killed in the fighting.
Now satellite images, baked by citizen videos posted to Tik-Tok, have shown an enormous build-up of Russian troops and equipment in Belarus, east of the Donbas area, and south, adjacent to the Crimea. (The Russians have also moved ships into the Adriatic, reportedly to counter any pro-Ukraine NATO activity.)
Putin claims these units have mobilized for gazetted military exercises. To be clear, these are not units but whole armies. In other words, he’s saying “What knife?”
The US administration asserts that the massed Russian forces will invade Ukraine within the next few days. Others have speculated that Russia will wait till its new buddy China completes its current public relations exercise in Beijing, aka the Winter Olympics. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is telling the West that it needs to relax because there’s not going to be an invasion — this is just the usual Russian fun and games. A statement of hope over reason?
Make no mistake, Russia will invade Ukraine. On this, at least, I agree with US President Biden. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind about it. And the incursion won’t be a minor one. The specific reasons why I’ll get to later.
WARGAMING THE INVASION. ROLL A DOUBLE AND YOU GET ANOTHER TURN.
Ever since the Red Army rolled back the Nazi invasion with massed tanks in the Great Patriotic War (WWII), the Russian military doctrine for a war in Europe has centered around having an overwhelming mechanized infantry. Tanks, tanks, and more tanks. Russia currently has no less than three tank armies. We're talking well over 12,000 main battle tanks (MBTs) of various models, the bulk of them Soviet-era T-72s and T-80s. Okay, so they’re not the latest in warfighting MBTs but many have been upgraded and, as Napoleon said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.”
By comparison, Germany, today, has 266 tanks – Leopard 2s. They are good tanks, but 50 years old in design and German experts believe the sabots they fire won’t penetrate the armor on Russian tanks.
Russia isn’t facing off against Germany, but you get the picture. Russia maintains today a supremely capable mechanized force designed to roll across the plains of Europe and smash anything in its way.
Ukraine has 6500 Soviet-era tanks. It’s the bare minimum deterrent if you live on the edge of a volcano.
But here’s the thing. A Great Power kinetic war in Europe will be fought very differently to the war fought in the 1940s. Or one that might have been fought when the Soviet Union was around in the 80s. Weapons and countermeasures available today didn’t exist even 10 years ago.
To begin with, before tanks roll, the conflict will break out in cyberspace. Russia will be working hard to take out vital services such as power and communications. Russia has been launching these weapons against the West for some considerable time, just to get some practical experience under its belt. Does the West have the necessary countermeasures in its back pocket that can be brought to bear on Ukraine’s behalf? Frankly, I don’t know. I don’t think anyone in the public domain has that knowledge. But the war between Russia and Kyiv could be won or lost online before a single shell is fired.
The next phase will, of course, be a full-on shooting war, spearheaded by all those Russian tanks and even more Russian armored vehicles, mobile artillery, and rocket launchers. But today, there are countermeasures. Like the American-made FGM-148 Javelin, a formidable weapon. What makes the Javelin such an effective newcomer to the battlescape is that it’s a man-portable “fire and forget" weapon. Previous man-portable anti-tank missiles such as the Dragon (that the Javelin has replaced), were wire-guided, requiring the operator to "steer" the missile to its target. This, of course, meant that the person pulling the trigger was exposed and vulnerable to counterfire. Britain has been training Ukraine forces in the use of the Javelin for a while now, as well as sending over truckloads of the things. America, too, has been rushing Javelins to the scene. Many thousands of these Javelins are now stockpiled where they can hurt and possibly cripple any Russian mechanized push. (In fact, the Javelin alone could spell the end of the tank as a useful weapon, as aircraft carriers and the force they could project sounded the death knell of the mighty battleship back in WWII.)
Add to the Javelin the scary, proven, Hellfire missile, and the deadly Maverick missile, the latter a “beyond visual range” (BVR) weapon that can be fired from a variety of airborne platforms both manned and unmanned, you’d have to say that the worst place to be when this conflict goes hot, is inside a Russian tank. [1]
This means that for any full-scale Russian land invasion to be successful, command of the skies will be critical. And this brings me to the next unfortunate reality to face a Russian invasion based on WWII battle planning: stealth. The fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, equips the air forces of more than half a dozen NATO member air forces. The F-35 has proved to be as good as invisible to radar. And that’s a problem for any Russian air defense system – if you can’t track it, you can’t shoot it. And each F-35 can carry several types of air-to-ground guided bombs, including the rather formidable Joint Direct Attack Munition or JDAM, a laser-guided 1000lb tank cracker.
So what about Russia’s missile defense systems? Its newest addition is the S-500 Prometheus, a system its makers claim will take out stealth aircraft, hypersonic and intercontinental missiles. Frankly, I have my doubts the system could pick up the F-35's radar cross-section, let alone track it continuously. There are physics at play that no current radar system can overcome. (The reasons are long and tedious and not worth going into here.) Prometheus will augment rather than replace the more widely used Russian S-400 "Triumph" and S-300 “Grumble” systems. Western aircraft have come up against both in Syria. They are quality surface-to-air deterrents but not to state-of-the-art BVR air-to-ground weapons or stealth technology.
Russia's air force is worthy but outclassed in the fifth-generation aircraft environment.
What this means is that Russia’s tank armies with be further exposed if it can’t own the skies.
Mind you all this talk about NATO and its toys is moot if the organization chooses not to come out to play, and that is currently its position. NATO has stated (at the time of writing) that it will limit its involvement to training Ukraine's army, supplying weapons, and humanitarian aide.
Putting the West’s technical wizardry aside, what Ukraine does have is an army bursting with veterans. And they’ll be fighting for their homes, on home soil. Russians are badass soldiers, sure, but unit for unit I would back the home side. The bloodshed will be enormous and there will be many grieving mothers on both sides of the border.
WHY I’M PUTTING IT ALL ON BLACK
Several reasons tell me an invasion is not only certain but imminent. Those reasons are: historical, geostrategic, financial, medical, meteorological, and political.
Historical
Vladimir Putin is on record as saying the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the great strategic tragedy of the 20th century. As a man with a sizeable ego (that’s an understatement), he is keen to leave a legacy to his successor. And that legacy is to grow Russia's sphere of influence in real terms. Ukraine has long been considered part of Russia, at least by a sizable proportion of Russians. While a percentage of the Ukrainian population agrees with this, what that percentage actually is depends on which organization conducts the poll. It’s unlikely to be 44%, the figure Tass, the Russian media organization, has published.
Geostrategic
Putin is uncomfortable with liberal democracies. A system of government that can vote you out of office and perhaps install an administration that comes after you down the track gives him the heebeejeebees. Having one of those on the Russian border giving Russians ideas has to be up there among Putin's worst nightmares. Far more of a comfort to him would be a dictatorship that’s beholden to Russia, like the one in Belorussia — President Lukashenko’s crowd-stomping regime.
The present Ukrainian government, a liberal democracy, has reached out openly to its European nations and stated its desire to be part of the Euro sphere, which includes NATO membership. President Putin wants non of that. What he wants is an entrenched puppet government in Kyiv that will kowtow to the Kremlin's wishes, and is willing to go to war to achieve it.
The irony here is that Ukraine reached out to Europe and NATO precisely because it lives next door to an unpredictable and powerful neighbor that covets its resources, territory, and population (people pay taxes). Russia's current bully-boy behavior simply confirms to Ukraine that NATO protection gives it the best (and possibly only) chance of survival as a sovereign state on its own terms.
The irony continues. The fact that Europe and the West (the main players being France, Germany, and Britain), led by Russia's arch-enemy the United States, are all throwing their weight behind the support of Ukraine merely serves as proof to Putin that Ukraine is indeed a Western puppet nation in waiting. Putin's solution: invade it and get rid of the threat. And do it now while you still have the chance.
Emotional
As I said, Putin has an ego. So does Biden, though his is an ego of a different stripe. Having mobilized the largest land army since the end of WWII, Putin will want a damn good (and salable) reason to have it stand down. If he simply backs away from his own threats, the macho hairy-chested bareback-riding black belt judo stuff he goes on with will be seen to be just theatre. Now that Putin has cocked the gun, he needs to fire it or lose cred.
Biden's ego is more about the sliding of American prestige. Liberal America has lately been positioned as a superpower with its best days behind it (the ghastly, costly, and sniveling way in which it pulled out of Afghanistan being the latest proof). Giving in to Putin's land grab will confirm to China, North Korea, and every other aspiring geopolitical asshole that the US is all talk and no action. Which they all believe is the case now anyway (apparently). At stake, potentially (and at the very least), is the freedom of Taiwan.
Financial
It costs a huge amount of cash to mobilize a force of 130,000-150,000 men (the estimate at time of writing) and their equipment and keep it all in the field. Where is the return on investment if there is no invasion? But with a compliant dictator installed in Kyiv, Moscow could then leverage all kinds of favorable trade deals, and perhaps even squeeze reparations out of the nation Putin publicly stated has threatened its security and forced it to act (i.e: Ukraine is to blame for this shit, not me)
Medical
For a time, during this build-up, I was skeptical that it would end in invasion because an essential element in Russia’s preparations for it was missing. A little more than a week ago, however, that omission was rectified – supplies of blood and plasma and the resources and equipment required to handle large trauma numbers arrived. So-called "planned exercises" don't require stocks of blood products to be on hand. But a planned mass casualty event (like a war) most certainly does.
Meteorological
The spring thaw will begin in around a month. Right now, frozen rivers in Ukraine are not only easier to cross, they currently serve as roads. A ground war fought in mud and slush is way more difficult and time-consuming. Any kind of invasion must be short, sharp, and decisive. If it's protracted, the cost and casualties go up. More global pressure is brought to bear to end it. The risk of NATO involvement increases. And so does the threat of a domestic insurgency. Current doctrine dictates that 20 counterinsurgents are required for every 1000 residents. So therefore Moscow would need to deploy close to 880,000 troops to contain it. Russia couldn't afford that at the best of times, and most certainly not when its oil, gas, and other exports are subjected to embargoes and sanctions as they most certainly will be.
Political
Putin’s grip on Russian hearts and minds ain’t what it used to be. Opposition demonstrations have had to be quelled and outlawed. Opposing political views have had to be poisoned and then jailed (Alexei Navalny). Putin has had to start a new conversation with his people and stoking the fires of nationalism has, at least in the past, been a proven winner. Also, proving to Russians that Russia is once again on the main stage of global politics like it was in the good ol' days — Russia is BACK, baby — will play well domestically. At least Putin thinks it will play well. And what dictator doesn't lust for a little khaki action to prove how big his balls are?
WILL A DEAL DEFUSE THIS SITUATION?
Of course, there’s always a chance that the West will come up with some compromise deal Putin accepts that, at the same time, doesn't paint Washington/Berlin/London as lily-livered wimpoids. I have no idea what that deal could possibly be. But whatever deal is struck should one be arrived at, be sure that major elements of it will be kept secret. Europe, and particularly Britain, has been most adept at secret deals, going way back to the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 that divided the Ottoman Empire’s middle-east region between it and France. And look where that has taken us.
DO ANY OF THESE PARTIES RELISH THE PROSPECT OF WAR?
You'd have to be a kook to want a war that will risk bringing the Great Powers into a direct shooting match. That said, I can well imagine folks in the Kremlin and Washington, and in certain industrial quarters, who may relish the thought of a big ass war. Both players have huge, competing military-industrial complexes with war-fighting technologies in the catalogs that haven't been tested. There are a trillion dollars out there waiting to be spent on new, innovative, and most of all proven military technology. All that’s missing is a showcase.
A FINAL WORD OF WARNING
Without a doubt, the militaries of all these nations have war-gamed this current scenario. But something has to be said about unintended consequences. Who'd have thought that America's invasion of Iraq would unzip the Middle East? Or that the war in Vietnam would lead to the Cambodian Killing Fields. Or that the two world wars would lead to military and civilian casualties totaling well over 100,000 million. The predicted consequences of a Russian invasion of Ukraine are that there will be a new cold war, a divided world, millions dead, millions of refugees, an energy crisis of unrivaled proportions, rampant inflation, and so on. But it's the unforeseeable outcomes that should give Putin pause.
[1] These are all US-made weapons. Other NATO countries have equivalent weapons that may well find their way into this conflict.
I hope you found this useful. And please, feel free to comment and share.
What the hell - why don’t you subscribe.
Stay safe, all.
Cheers
David
A very interesting and disturbing analysis, thank you. When you look at it this way, it's hard to imagine there's going to be any good outcome. I'm also curious about the question as to whether Putin believes his own image and rhetoric.
Excellent summary of the situation, David. Very worthwhile.