Today in Newsweek
Moscow's Slow, Bloody March to Defeat
By William M. Arkin On 3/7/23 at 6:00 AM EST
U.S. intelligence believes that Russia will ultimately lose the war in Ukraine due to its poor battlefield performance, rigid command structure and heavy losses.
Even if Russian troops capture Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, it would not be a victory and does not show any improvement in their military effectiveness, U.S. defense officials believe.
Moscow has managed to move its army just 43 miles in seven months, while Ukraine ferociously defends its territory at great human cost.
The Russian army is facing up to 70 percent casualties among troops on the front line, U.S. defense officials say, and the Wagner Group of mercenaries is also suffering from shortages of ammunition and supplies.
Russia's capture of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, if and when that happens, will be the grim culmination of a near seven-month campaign to take a city of 70,000 at a cost of thousands of soldiers killed and injured. But it does not constitute a victory, U.S. defense officials say, nor show any improvement in Russian military performance or augur any change in the ultimate direction of the war.
"Russia is not winning, and the cracks in its foundations are getting larger," says a senior Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officer who spoke exclusively to Newsweek. The official cites atrocious morale, poor battlefield performance, an overly rigid command structure, poor coordination (and even interference) between the Russian regular army and the Wagner Group of mercenaries, and shortages of everything due to disrupted and unreliable supply lines.
"I think it is more of a symbolic value than it is strategic and operational value," Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said on Monday, commenting about Bakhmut while he was on a visit to Jordan in the Middle East. Austin said that the fall of Bakhmut wouldn't mean that Russia has "changed the tide" of the war. He observed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "continuing to pour in a lot of ill-trained and ill-equipped troops" into the Bakhmut battle while Ukraine was patiently "building combat power."
Despite Russia's slow advance, Bakhmut delivers a stark message: the two sides are fighting different battles. Russia plods along into graveyards of its own making in a losing battle where it shows no regard for human lives, including its own. Meanwhile, Ukraine is ferociously defending its territory at great human cost while also increasingly utilizing all of the tools of modern warfare, from advanced technology to superior intelligence. Russia is stuck in the 20th century while Ukraine practices a form of 21st century jujitsu, thwarting the invaders beyond the trenches while also taking advantage of Russian weaknesses.
Slow-Motion Loss
Since its offensive in the Donbas began in April, Russia has managed to move its army all of 43 miles, from outside Severodonetsk to Bakhmut. That's the distance from the White House to the northern suburbs of Baltimore, halfway from the Hague to Brussels, from central London not even to Cambridge.
Russia "is continuing its attempted assault on Bakhmut and surrounding towns," the Ukrainian General Staff said on Monday, with Ukrainian forces repelling almost 100 ground attacks on Sunday alone. "Civilians are fleeing the region to escape Russian shelling continuing round the clock as additional Russian troops and weapons are being deployed there," Donetsk Governor Pavlo Kyrylenko also said on Monday.
Despite Russia's moves, Ukrainian military commanders want to hold their defensive position in Bakhmut, the Ukrainian president's office said Monday. General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander of Ukraine's ground forces, "spoke in favor of continuing the defensive operation and further strengthening positions in Bakhmut," the office said in a statement on its website.
Part of the reason for Ukraine's stubbornness is its recognition that the Russian way of war in Ukraine remains rigid and unchanging: utilize massive barrages of indirect fire (artillery, rockets, missile and air attack) in attempts to pulverize Ukrainian defensive positions. This was the tactic Russia used in the cities of Mariupol, Severodonetsk and Lysychansk last year. "Soften up" and destroy with artillery and follow up with frontal ground assaults.
Meanwhile, the destruction has been stark. "Burnt ruins" is how Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described Bakhmut during a brief visit in December.
With some 100 ground attacks per day, nonetheless, Russia inches forward at great cost. U.S. intelligence estimates that Russian forces—soldiers and Wagner Group mercenaries—are facing up to 70 percent casualties in frontline units; that is, for every 10 soldiers thrown into the fight, only three emerge unscratched.
Ukrainian General Volodymyr Nazarenko, deputy commander in the National Guard, said last week that the Russians aggressors "take no account of their losses in trying to take the city by assault. The task of our forces in Bakhmut is to inflict as many losses on the enemy as possible. Every meter of Ukrainian land costs hundreds of lives to the enemy."
Though much has been written about the brutality and bloodthirstiness of the private Wagner Group in the assaults on Bakhmut, it has simultaneously been at war with the Kremlin. Yegveny Prigozhin, leader of the mercenary group, said Monday that his liaison officers have been denied access to Russian military command posts, and he has railed against Moscow denying his forces ammunition and supplies. "On March 5, I wrote a letter to the [Russian] commander ... about the urgent need to allocate ammunition," Prigozhin said.
"For now, we are trying to figure out the reason: is it just ordinary bureaucracy or a betrayal," he said.
U.S. intelligence is reporting that Wagner troops, though more successful than the regular Russian army, have not only had little to no coordination with the Russian high command, but it is taking a larger number of casualties and even suffering numerous "friendly fire" incidents in the small space of the battlefield.
"I would say the Wagner forces have been a bit more effective than the Russian forces," Secretary Austin said on Monday. "Having said that, we have not seen exemplary performance from Russian forces."
"Effectiveness at the micro level does not equal operational effectiveness," says the DIA officer. "Bakhmut means little in the overall scheme." In some ways, the officer says, the whole Bakhmut battle demonstrates even more of a defeat for Putin.
"Russia can't seem to learn from its experiences, and it can only move forward while taking unsustainable losses." The addition of the Wagner fighters, the officer says, also complicates Putin's war. Not only are Prigozhin and Wagner proving to be a thorn in Putin's side, but they are further demoralizing the regular army.
The Kremlin's response so far has been to say and claim little. Neither the Kremlin nor the Russian Ministry of Defense even mentioned Bakhmut on Monday. And Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu showed up in the occupied city of Mariupol, touring what Moscow says is the city's rebuilt infrastructure, trumpeting the only "win" it has left amid enormous losses in the fight for Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.
Dense to the End
"Russia has slowly moved forward, but it has been unable to change its tactics or capitalize on its numerical superiority," writes a retired Army lieutenant general who commanded an American division in battle in response to a Newsweek query. The officer, now a defense industry executive, says that though Ukraine made some early tactical mistakes, it now has built a solid defense. "Western replenishment of ammunition and newer technologies are giving Ukraine advantages, but the credit ultimately goes to the grit and perseverance of the individual soldiers on the ground."
President Zelensky is particularly careful to give the soldiers on the ground credit for the fight. "I would like to pay special tribute to the bravery, strength and resilience of the soldiers fighting in the Donbas," he said over the weekend, adding that Bakhmut has been "one of the hardest battles ... painful and difficult."
As the Bakhmut battle reaches its climax, it is worth remembering that Russian victories have all been in the headlines and not in reality. In the first hours of Russia's offensive, most Western officials and pundits issued dire predictions about the "decapitation" of the Ukrainian government, about a 72-hour capture of Kyiv, and of the taking of Ukrainian territory by superior Russian forces. Captured invasion plans now show that the Russian military itself expected to sprint hundreds of miles across Ukraine and triumph within days. U.S. intelligence also got the Russians and the war wrong in the early days.
As the months accumulated to a year, little changed. Russia withdrew from the Kyiv region, lost Kherson and Kharkiv, mobilized more troops, lost its grip on the Luhansk region, and then stalled. Neither of the leviathans of war—neither Russian tanks nor artillery—have had much effect on the overall war beyond their capacity for destruction. The human cost is obscene and the destruction tragic, but Russia continues to falter.
"I've been wrong in the past in saying that it's only a matter of time," says the DIA officer. "But it's been only a matter of time till Russia loses, not when it will win. Bakhmut is important because Russian victory or Ukrainian perseverance, either one, will serve to redouble Kyiv's efforts. It's only a matter of time."
Thanks for taking the time to analyze the situation and ask the critical question about how it will end. I can't say I agree or disagree about hypotheticals but my guess is that you see it as too black and white. The war will end, and the dangers remain high, but Putin has respected certain invisible red lines and conventions precisely because he wants to salvage a "win," a win in the same way that winning includes the ability to continue the argument that Ukraine is a part of Russia.
I see an outcome more akin to Iraq in 1991 -- withdrawal of forces, declaration of victory, decade(s) long standoff. A muddle. Just as the Soviets and the United States did in Afghanistan.
If you think Russia is losing/going to lose the war, you have another thing coming. No disrespect. As much as everyone, myself included, wants Ukraine to win, the reality is an unfortunate one. If I have to put it simply, Russia will either win the war or destroy the world.
Now, with the in depth discussion. Taking the absolute question of who is or is going to win aside for a second. Ukraine is using resources provided to them by NATO. They have little to no equipment of their own. With that said, it is getting to point where that well is starting to run dry or at the very least, slow down substantially. With the resources being provided, NATO (for obvious reasons) is hesitant to give Ukraine the equipment needed that would give them the boost necessary to make a substantial impact. This is not to mention the hit that NATO is taking on their resources as a result.
Russia is using their own resources with no help from anyone. If it comes down to playing the waiting game, Russia being energy independent, has more than enough energy and supplies, with a constant supply flow being produced and implemented to the battlefield without hindrance. They will be able to take this as long as needed unless there is a NATO intervention. This is not even considering that more then half of the entire worlds population supports Russia. Maybe not physically, at least at this point, but they support Russia's actions. I can all but guarantee that if push comes to shove those countries are going to be offering a little more than just moral support.
Ukraine on the other hand does not have the energy they need to wait out Russia. Alot of their energy is imported or plugged into Europe, sucking even more resources from NATO. They are almost completely dependent on other countries in terms of equipment and more than half of their energy. The more energy and resources poured into Ukraine, the more vulnerable NATO becomes. Where do they draw the line without intervention? Alot of European countries are already backtracking and starting to question if they can provide more. This will be leading to exhausted NATO resources and on the flip side (Russia's side) resources that have not even been touched yet, being supplied by the mentioned "over half of the world's population". That's not a good place NATO needs to be or wants to be in. It is also important to note that if NATO does get involved kinetically, we all know the implications. That dynamic is a whole different ballgame.
Even in the best case scenario, WW3 starts with a depleted allied force and a completely fresh enemy force. Worst case scenario, It goes nuclear and that is end game.
The longer this goes on it's going to come down to three outcomes. #1 NATO is going to be forced to stop feeding Ukraine all resources, leading to a literal genocide of all people still inside Ukraine's borders.
#2 NATO is going to keep providing the resources they need. In turn, handcuffing NATO and making them vulnerable to any other scenario where defense is necessary. Whether that be Russia taking the war to a NATO nation bordering Ukraine or China seeing an opportunity to pull the trigger on Taiwan. That is just 2 of the tens, if not hundreds of scenarios that are a possibility.
#3 Russia is going to get backed into a corner or NATO is going to be forced to get involved. Both of which equal endgame. With that, I would argue that the most dangerous scenario would be backing Putin into a corner risking the chance that he goes nuclear. As if it isn't obvious, to back Putin into a corner will only occur if Ukraine is starting to do anything that resembles them winning the war. And if Putin is a man of his word and he is not bluffing, (which I'd rather not find out if he is or not) Ukraine at the sole hand of NATO, is walking us right into the end of humanity as we know it.
No matter how many soldiers have died on either side or who is or is not winning does not even matter because as I previously stated multiple times, and what I want to make VERY CLEAR. Russia WILL NOT LOSE. Putin has made that very distinct. Putin either wins the war or the world gets demolished. Putting it another way, he either wins or everybody loses. That at which he is alluding to, does not mention and/or result in a victory for Ukraine nor the West. We can slice it any way we would like and ultimately the outcome remains the same.
The only way out of this to consider it even a slight victory for Ukraine and/NATO is a peace agreement. A peace agreement that NATO is seemingly adamant on not having. Which could be impart because and in my honest opinion, I think Biden got way ahead of himself and made the mistake over implementing a Ukraine victory into his reelection campaign and very early on. That leaves the 3 other options stated above. Take your pick but NON even entertain anything resembling a win for Ukraine or NATO. The question is not "who is WINNING the war?". The question is "who is GOING TO WIN the war?.
Bringing me to my last point. Let's play devil's advocate and say best case scenario, Ukraine wins, Russia retreats, NATO doesn't get involved. The damage is already done and I don't really call that a win either. The entirety of eastern Ukraine is completely demolished. I would argue that there isn't a single building standing. Judging by aerial photos, on site footage, and first hand accounts, that seems to be the consensus. More than a third of Ukraine's entire population has already been displaced. The Ukrainian male population from age 18-65 has been completely decimated. This is just a few of the many variables involved in this.
Look, I mean no disrespect by my comment and I am 100% completely on your side in terms of who we want to win the war. I want to make that very clear. You and I see eye to eye on that aspect. Hell, even with most of what you said I can stand behind. I just don't think people consider the lasting implications this war has the potential of having. They at least don't consider it far enough. I also don't think enough people are giving Putin the respect he deserves. And I don't mean respect as far as a human being or in the literal sense. I mean respect as in his ability to, his seriousness to, and his probability to take this to a level NOBODY wants to see if he starts feeling like he could possibly lose the war. I just think it most definitely should be part of the discussion and not downplayed in the fashion that it is.
That said, I do appreciate your input and the time, care, and effort it took to put your thoughts down on paper. I 100% will not take anything away from those efforts. I also meant absolutely no disrespect to you or your views. If it seemed as though I was, that was not my intent. I just think dialogue is important to get ideas flowing as I am a very open minded person. I will also be the first person to admit that I was wrong and most certainly, in this case, I HOPE IM WRONG. If that turns out to be the case, this post will be the first place I stop. Hell, I'll even meet up with you to have beer! That is a lot to digest and I apologize for posting the Gettysburg Address but it was all in good faith.
I hope you have a healthy, happy, and blessed day. Cheers!