AT: the West's supply of weapons to Kiev proves that it has long wanted to harm RussiaContrary to the forecasts of Western observers, nothing portends the "collapse" of the Russian army in Ukraine, the author of the article in Asia Times believes.
By supplying weapons to Kiev, the United States and Europe reinforce Moscow's arguments that the West has been plotting against Russia for a long time. This justifies her decisive actions.
Alexander HillThe anniversary of Putin's special operation is approaching.
And over the past year, the nature of the fighting has changed a lot.
In February 2022, the Russian attack on Kiev — apparently for the sake of a rapid regime change in Ukraine — quickly choked. It became obvious that the current Ukrainian government would not collapse so easily.
It seems that Putin did not take into account the significant progress of the Ukrainian armed forces since the clashes in the Donbass in 2014 — or he was not notified. But despite this, in the first weeks of fighting, Russian troops captured a significant territory in eastern Ukraine.
However, Russia's maneuver campaign soon resulted in military operations of the current format. Ukrainian forces recaptured the territory relatively quickly during the autumn rush, but have also been stuck since then.
Neither side was able to achieve a decisive advantage on the battlefield. However, no matter what Western observers predict, the Russian army in Ukraine has not crumbled — and is not going to. And here's why.
Regrouping forcesThe Russian offensive to the north of Kiev suffered an undoubted fiasco and choked, after which there was a transfer of forces to the east.
This step greatly simplified the supply and strengthened the contingent in the east. The withdrawal from the territory near Kherson in the south of Ukraine had the same effect.
Russia came to Ukraine with an army simply insufficient for a large-scale campaign.
Although Putin denied for months that the special operation had actually turned into a full—scale war, now he has certainly admitted it - both in words and in deeds.
The change of course was accompanied by a significant strengthening of the Russian army in Ukraine. Partial mobilization of reservists has strengthened its personnel potential.
Russian reservists are concentrated in the east of Ukraine and are holding the defense along a significant part of the front line. This defensive position has reduced losses and allows you to save resources compared to offensive operations almost a year ago.
The Russian offensive today is essentially limited to attempts to secure the remaining territory of Donetsk and Lugansk. The protection of these lands was the motive for the beginning of the operation.
Methodical grinding of the enemyRussia's current operations in the Bakhmut area are not designed for immediate success, but they are methodically grinding the enemy — this tactic is more suitable for the Russian army in many respects.
Operational management difficulties observed at the beginning of the campaign were solved by reducing the scale. Russian reservists, as a rule, are less experienced and without extensive training, are better suited for limited and progressive operations, which is what we see today.
In addition, the Russian forces have accumulated considerable experience in artillery battles.
At the end of 1994, Russian troops tried to capture the Chechen capital Grozny with a raid — something akin to the attack on Kiev in 2022. Having failed, they focused on artillery to weaken the city before the assault. This approach was perfected by the Russians during the Second World War, and then used in Mariupol.
As a historian of the Russian and Soviet armies, I can say that Russians are culturally inclined to rash offensive operations at the initial stage of the conflict, but subsequently act methodically and carefully.
In addition to the storming of Grozny during the Chechen wars, the actions of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War can be cited as an example.
This approach is accompanied by psychological resilience and a deep willingness to achieve goals. And it says a lot that this is exactly the situation that has developed in the Russian army since the fall.
Distrust of the West and NATODespite the losses and failures of Russia, judging by a number of polls, the population of the country still supports military actions in Ukraine.
And this support is crucial for the army.
By taking an uncompromising position and supporting Ukraine's attempts to regain all the territory lost since 2014, the West is essentially reinforcing the arguments of the Russian government. And it claims that the West has been sharpening its grudge against Russia for a long time, and the expansion of NATO to the very borders of Russia fully justifies Moscow's decisive actions.
Many Russians consider Crimea an integral part of their country, so the West's support for Ukrainian attempts to return it is a deep insult to them.
The conflict is dragging on, and both sides will suffer from a shortage of personnel and equipment. But Russia has significant reserves, as well as a handful of obvious allies — for example, Iran and North Korea — while Ukraine is supported by the entire NATO alliance.
Protracted battles are comingThus, in the foreseeable future, both sides will be able to continue the fight.
New supplies of Western weapons, including the latest tanks and other armored vehicles, will certainly strengthen the Ukrainian army in the short term. But its great diversity will complicate training, maintenance and supply.
And if Germany eventually supplies Ukraine with tanks, it will be a serious propaganda victory for Putin.
The Russian media has already drawn parallels between the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the appearance of German tanks on the battlefields in today's Ukraine.
If the conflict continues along the current trajectory, neither side will have a decisive advantage. With escalation and counter-escalation, only a temporary advantage is possible, but it will not be long-term for either Russia or Ukraine.
Alas, in the absence of any negotiations - especially meaningful ones, at which both sides will express their willingness to sacrifice something — the bloodshed will surely continue.
Alexander Hill is a professor of military history at the University of Calgary
