Ukrainian and Russian Offensive Options

 It's been just over a year since Russia launched its "Special Military Operation" against Ukraine, and what a year it has been. Many mistakes have been made by both sides, and if NATO had not intervened to supply Ukraine with weapons, and just as importantly money, this war would have been over in three months at the most. In particular, shoulder fired anti tank weapons paralyzed the Russian advance, which due to the time of year, was reduced to funneling along road ways which became killing zones. The Russians, having lost the initiative of a quick lightening attack, became overstretched and in a vulnerable position. The Ukrainians took advantage of that by launching their offensive in Lugansk, Kharkov and Kherson oblasts. The Russians then had no choice but to with drawl to a defensive posture that its army could defend. That sums up the first year of the war more or less. 

The big question is what are the next battlefield moves. Ukraine is facing some difficult choices in this regard. Although much has been made by Ukrainian and Western propaganda of the successful Ukrainian "counter offensive" (which is the political term for counter-attack") in driving Russian troops back, this is a bit of a stretch. The truth is when Russia failed to capture Mykolaiv, and thereby open the door to Odessa, the only real defensive position they could take was the city of Kherson and the Dnieper River. American exports of Hymars rocket systems to Ukraine, which constantly damaged Russian crossings of the Dnieper, forced Russia to abandon the city of Kherson and establish defensive lines on the opposite side of the Dnieper. Up until that time, Ukrainian troops were suffering defeat after defeat in the fields north of Kherson, so it wasn't Ukrainian offensive tactics that one the day, but rather strategic tactics.

In Kharkov/ Lugansk oblasts it was a similar story. It was not so much a feat of arms that dislodged the Russians from this area - it was overrun because Russian forces were very over stretched and had to withdraw to defensible lines. That brings us to today. The Russian Army is no longer in a position of being overstretched. It has had time to reinforce defensive lines along the front, and increase the size of its forces engaged in the conflict by 300,000 troops (not including Wagner units). Importantly, the Russians have hurriedly upgraded their acquisition and use of drones. This leaves Ukraine with the stark choice of where to conduct an offensive (the much touted "spring counter offensive") as demanded by their Western allies. 

The most talked about, and perhaps obvious choice is an attack along the southern front from Zaporizhzhia, which would aim to capture Melitopol and Mariupol - effectively ending the Russian land route to Crimea. However, that option is also obvious to the Russians, and the area has been heavily fortified and reinforced. The Russians also have the advantage of almost immediate air and naval support from Crimea and area and Rostov-On-Don. While the Ukrainians may try this in an act to appease their backers, should they use massive resources to do so, and lose, their war could be over. Therefore, from a Ukrainian perspective, a large southern assault should be out of the question. Ditto for attacking Crimea in force. That leaves the Donetsk city front, the Bakmut front, or the Russian front as options. 

Both Donetsk and Bakmut fronts are fortified areas that would chew up Ukrainian troops. While a significant attack in Bakhmut, when the ground is dry, may cause the Russians to withdraw, the Ukrainians would be faced with the Severodonetsk area. Built up area after built up area, mostly in ruins. As World War Two showed, cities full of rubble make the job of defence much more easy for the defenders. That leaves the last option - the Russian front.

In the last year Ukraine has shown two traits: embarrass Russia; and try to provoke a greater war in the region. The ideal way to do that would be an invasion of Russia itself - namely Belgorod. Belgorod is a Russian city very close to the Ukrainian border. Not far away from Belgorod is Kharkov, which remains firmly in Ukrainian hands. The Ukrainians can use Kharkov as a strategic supply point for their troops entering Russia and a battle for Belgorod. Undoubtably the Russian military would see such a buildup in Kharkov with their satellites, but what if they decide it also serves their strategic purposes that Ukraine makes such a move. Given that all the other fronts will cost Ukraine massive casualties and loses of equipment, it makes sense to kill a few birds with one stone. No doubt their allies would say "you can't expect Ukraine to fight on its own soil only when it was invaded by a hostile act..." 

On the other side of the fence, Russian military planners have to decide what their next move is. While the intel on Russian forces dispositions is limited to us, we know they called up 300,000 reservists. About 80,000 of those were current enough in their training to join the conflict immediately. Where the other 200,000 plus are is a bit of a mystery. Many channels are suggesting these troops have been going through thorough training with combat veterans. If that is the case, and they have not yet been committed to the fight, Russia has a powerful force for its own spring offensive. However, I doubt this will be the case. 

Russia, unlike Ukraine, has no pressure from its allies to conduct an offensive en masse. It seems quite content to engage, pin and destroy Ukrainian units - namely in Bakhmut and Avdiivka. It uses mainly conscripts in Bakhmut, and thereby destroys Ukrainian units while leaving its regular army in one piece. This is how the Russians do military strategy and they have in every major war they've been involved in. Fewer people at home complain about losses when they are people who were in prison. The same mentality exists in the West, but is rarely acted on as it is in this case. Russia has also learned, you would think, that big offenses that stretch your troops too thin bring drastic consequences. 

To avoid these consequences I believe Russia will stand pat until after the Ukrainians commit their troops in an offensive. Once the Russians have defeated the Ukrainian offensive they will go on the counter-attack. That is likely the time that the 200,000 troops in training will be committed, but to where?

Given that the Russian Army is currently trying to take Bakhmut many speculate that Kramatorsk and Slavyansk will be next. However, both cities are heavily fortified and would prove to be worse than Bakhmut in terms of manpower/equipment necessary, time and casualties. It makes more sense that the Russians would head south from Bakhmut, through Kostyantynivka and onto Pokrovsk. Pokrovsk is a hub city like Bakhmut, and capturing it would cut off Ukrainian troops entrenched around the city of Donetsk. The Russians are currently fighting in, and have captured most of Marinka. Once Marinka is captured the Russians could move along the road to Kurakove. Once Kurakove is captured the Ukrainian Army in Donetsk city area will be fully surrounded in what the Russians like to call a "boiler". Cut off from resupply, and unable to retreat, the enveloped Ukrainians will have no choice but to surrender. This seems like a logical path for a Russian offensive. 

Whatever the case may be in the coming months, look for the Ukrainian Army to make the first move, and Russia to take the advantage in response. 

Russia's EMP hits Ukraine

 

Nine months into the war between Russia and Ukraine, and to say it has been topsy turvy would be an understatement. Russia began the attack on Ukraine with a five-pronged assault, which was clearly aimed at forcing the Ukrainian government into a quick capitulation on Russian terms. However, Russia picked the wrong time of the year to go on the offensive which, when combined with western anti-armor missiles and satellite intelligence proved to be the impediments to Russia's victory.

Russia's war on Ukraine has been akin to "what not to do" when invading a foreign country. A very crucial mistake by the Russian military was forgoing an air campaign against Ukraine's air force, air defence units and critical infrastructure like the bridges over the Dnieper River. The winter weather in February meant   Russian armor and mechanized infantry, along with truck-borne supply lines, were road-bound and sitting ducks for Ukraine's newly acquired shoulder-fired anti-armor missiles.  

Things quickly bogged down, and in short order Russia was having to conduct fighting withdrawals around Kiev, Sumy, Kharkov and areas. The undermanned gamble turned into the undermanned being exposed. New lines of defence were shortened to give out numbered Russian troops a fighting chance at holding what they had left. Unfortunately, even that was too much ground for them to defend, and subsequent withdrawals were needed in Kherson and Kharkiv. Essentially, this was a military disaster born of political strategy rather than sound military strategy. It has all the hall marks of Russian President Putin's thinking at the time - treat Ukraine nicely as they are brother Slavs and brotherly nations. So much for brotherly love. 

That brings us too today. Having crossed the Dnieper River, and feeling safe there, Russians have dug in to defend their land bridge to Crimea. On the Donetsk/Lugansk fronts the Russians and Ukrainians are trading moistly fruitless attacks all along the front. Ukraine appears to be transferring freed up units from the Kherson front to the Zaporozhye front. It appears they are preparing an assault aimed at taking back Melitopol and Mariupol, thus severing Russia's land bridge to Crimea, and gaining their access back to the Azoz Sea. It is a tall order, especially as winter begins to set in, but being audacious hasn't tied the hands of Ukrainian commanders so far. 

The Russians, for their part, seem to be considering doing what they ought to have done in the first place - an air campaign. The "Coalition of the Willing" bombed Iraq for 30 days before sending a single unit into the fray. Now Russia is doing the same in retrospect - having already suffered the losses which an air campaign is meant to avoid. The interesting part of Russia's strategy has been targeting Ukraine's electrical system. As of this date, the Ukrainian government claims 50% of its electrical systems have been destroyed. Replacement parts to rebuild these systems can take up to ten months to manufacture. It's a recipe for disaster for Ukraine.

Every person that lives in a country with harsh winter understands that without energy you cannot sustain life. It doesn't end there. Ukraine can evacuate its population to Europe, but what it can't do is save its infrastructure. Namely, without heat all the plumbing, water and sewer, will freeze solid over the winter. Homes will be ruined, businesses will be destroyed, water and sewer plants will be left useless, and Ukraine will become a ghost land. What the Russian missile campaign has managed to do is roughly the equivalent of an EMP strike without the nuclear detonation. If Russia continues its campaign to completely destroy Ukraine's power system, and in the process destroys the infrastructure necessary for modern life, then the result is the country of Ukraine is a vast, vacant land with no ability to reconstitute itself without Russia.

Furthermore, the tens of millions of Ukrainians that will have no choice but to evacuate Ukraine will flood Europe, which is already desperately rationing power for its own citizens, resulting in an economic shock to Europe and possibly the world. The effect on the battlefield will be just as devastating. Troops will lack the basics to heat and feed themselves. Supply lines for just the basics will stretch across Ukraine and into Europe - a recipe for disaster. Many people in the general public do not understand just how close to the abyss Ukraine is right now. Not unlike Russia in the early days of the conflict, people see Ukraine as walking over the Russians. However, not unlike Russia in the early days of the war, Ukraine is becoming overstretched given the collapse of its infrastructure and the march of "General Winter".

A number of sources have been suggesting that Russia has given Ukraine an ultimatum: Get to the negotiation table by the end of November or have the last of your electrical infrastructure destroyed. Effectively, get to the negotiation table or have your country sent back to stone ages. A daunting choice indeed. Ukraine has apparently responded to this strategy with a kamikaze-like strategy of its own - missile strikes on the Russian controlled nuclear plant at Zaporozhye which, if the plant is damaged, would have the effect of a nuclear strike with deadly radiation spreading over the region - including Russia. When it gets down to it, both countries are upping the ante to a nuclear war without the nukes. This is where it's at with nine days left in November as Ukraine begins to slowly freeze over.

Putin Plays the West

It's early days in the battle I often refer to as the "Gold War". Russia and China, having announced their intention to form a new Eurasian economic order, inclusive of India and other BRIC nations, are now fending off blows from the West. The Russian ruble, currently pegged to the US dollar, has been taking a hammering as the US and more specifically its ally Saudi Arabia, glut the world oil market forcing a massive decline in the price per barrel. One has to assume it's part of the "price" Obama said Russia would pay for its intervention to materially support Eastern Ukraine (Novorossyia) separatist forces. That's just on the face of it though.

Consider and remember that China is the bank and Russia is the sword of the new Eurasian alliance. The goal of that alliance is not to do well under the US dollar, but to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency with either a new currency or the Chinese yuan. That is important. Both China and Russia have large reserves of foreign currency - in Russia's case nearly $500 billion.

Then consider Russian President Putin. He rose through Russia's power ranks as an intelligence officer. That is one of three important pieces of the pie. That means: he uses deception and part truths to achieve an end; he is disciplined and demands the same of others in his circle; he is ruthless and flexible in achieving his goals; and he will never crack. Secondly, he is a judo master. That means he uses movement and blocking to defend against blows, but most importantly he uses the energy of his enemy as his own to defeat an attack. That part is critically important to remember. Finally, he is Russian. Russians have a proud place in world history due to the massive and brutal sacrifices they have made along the way. The most recent of which was the 25 million Russians who died during World War Two while ensnaring most of Hitler's armies, and giving the other allies time to organize and become engaged. Russians are used to sacrifice, and are super sensitive about the "Motherland" being prosecuted by foreigners.

Putin is using all three of these elements. He is using the Motherland as the force behind him, that will hold him upright in battle. He is using judo to block, move, and use the energy of his foes. He remains disciplined to his cause while apparently allowing his foe to walk into, no run into, his trap.

Why did Putin move into Crimea, and then support (with deniability) Eastern Ukraine separatists? What purpose does a "frozen conflict", as some call it, serve? Well, it's simply a means to an end. On the one hand it's defensive as the US took over influence of Ukraine, on Russia's border. On the other hand it's reason to invite economic conflict with the US. Putin had to know the US would not go to physical war with Russia over Ukraine - especially the quasi occupation of just a part of Ukraine. So the natural deduction would be financial sanctions to try and remove Russia from the US's new ally's territory. The territory of Ukraine being it's only real strategic value. However, its real value to Putin is to not let the US and to a lesser extent Europe escape from a financial battle.

When Obama rushed in to "make Russia pay" for its actions in Ukraine, Putin must have been smiling. Every sanction the US placed against Russia was matched by Western Europe. Western Europe is dependent on Russia for economic survival. The US can't replace the European loss of market in Russia, so anything other than a very short sanction period means severe financial harm for Europe - especially Germany. As Europe slides into recession and worst, Russia can now sit by and watch as Europeans blame US sanctions for destroying their markets. While the US projects strength in Europe with sanctions and military posturing, Europeans suffer the effects. Not dissimilar to the US of Europe as battlegrounds of past wars.

With every new economic sanction waged against Russia, Putin can turn to his own people and make the case that "Western partners" are too unstable and immature to have trading relations with. All the more need for an Eurasian alliance of like-minded, stable countries who want peace and brotherly love. The more the US pushes the faster it loses. Like quick sand.

Today Putin announced that Russia has $500 billion in foreign currency. Enough, according to him, to defend the ruble for two years. However, this is the intelligence officer's half truth. While it may be true that the reserves will defend the ruble, is the purpose to defend the ruble, or is the purpose to use up the foreign currency before Russia and China switch to a gold based currency standard, thus making the US dollar irrelevant as the world reserve currency. I suggest they're using up what they have while it still has a value to them. It gives them 2 years, as Putin partially said, to transform their monetary systems to gold based. After that, they don't care.

Lastly, the US and Saudi flooding of the oil market is also working for Putin and China. China gets to stock its strategic oil reserves on the cheap. Saudi and other major oil producers are losing massive revenue that they can't replace, and they are not meant to transition into the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance - meaning they won't have anywhere of significance to sell their oil in 2 years, and will be infighting with the US and other partners for market share. Meanwhile, in the Eurasian/BRIC alliance Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be selling their oil to China, South America and Africa in a stable market which has no competitors, and controls three quarters of the world's population.

So, the best way to view the events of today is to remember that the intelligence officer's mantra is "kill at least two birds with one stone". Cheap oil hurts Russia in the interim, but it solidifies the need for a stable market place in people's minds. Russian peoples minds. Chinese peoples minds. Etc. Where is the stable market? Well obviously not the US as they "ride like cowboys into the China shop", or US allies that let them. As the US proverbially throws a punch at it, Russia proverbially uses that energy to reach its final goal. For the rest of us, it means be prepared to be the collateral damage. Protect yourself, and your investments as best you can, because when big powers fight the little guy is not on the radar.