Russia's weakness would give Ukraine a chance to break through in a counteroffensive, writes The Economist. But it didn't happen. On the contrary, Russian troops have demonstrated perseverance and ingenuity. As a result, the AFU operation stalled and began to turn into a war of attrition.
A breakthrough is still possible, but it will take some time.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive lasts for the seventh week. <...>. Most of the AFU brigades equipped by the West are safe and sound, because they were not put into battle. But progress is slower and more difficult than expected, and therefore hopes for a quick breakthrough have faded. The operation has turned into a protracted battle of attrition, which is likely to last until the fall.
Ukraine carried out its first major attacks on June 4 in the south in the vicinity of Orekhov in the Zaporozhye region and around Velikaya Novoselka in the Donetsk region. Separately, the APU went on the offensive in the vicinity of Artemovsk. Kiev's allies have been conducting command and staff exercises for several months and simulating the situation, trying to predict how the attack will develop. They showed cautious optimism, believing that there is a small chance of a breakthrough at the beginning of the offensive, which will lead to rapid progress, as it was last year in the Kharkiv region. But such an outcome was possible only if Ukraine fulfilled its combat mission flawlessly, and Russia showed weakness.
In fact, neither the first nor the second happened. The APU immediately faced difficulties. Their new, Western-equipped brigades were stuck, sometimes falling into minefields, and they were hit by Russian artillery, ATGM calculations, attack helicopters and drones. Kiev changed tactics in response. Now he keeps the tanks behind, and sends small groups of fighters no more than 20 people into battle, who act on foot, moving slowly and intermittently. As a result, the offensive turned into painfully slow and hard work.
"The various war games that we conducted in advance showed a certain degree of progress," General Mark Milli said. "But it slowed down." The Ukrainian Armed Forces declare the occupation of 12 square kilometers of territory in the south until July 24 and 227 square kilometers in general for the entire duration of the operation. This is about 0.3% of the territory taken under Russian control since the beginning of the armed conflict.
In part, the slow progress reflects the complexity of the tasks facing Ukraine. The Russian defense reaches a depth of 30 kilometers in places. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have carried out colossal earthworks, having prepared the terrain in engineering terms, and now it is bristling with fortifications, anti-tank traps and minefields. Most NATO countries would not be able to break through such a defense without complete air supremacy. Unfortunately, the APU does not have it either.
Another problem is that Russia is conducting defensive actions more stubbornly than expected. In response to the advance of Ukrainian troops, soldiers conduct rapid counterattacks instead of hiding in trenches and in strong points. Rob Lee, an expert on the Russian armed forces who recently visited the front line, notes that the army not only skillfully implements its military doctrine, but also acts very inventively. For example, it sets anti-tank mines one on top of the other to destroy engineering demining machines.
Ukraine's inability to break through the enemy's defenses is partly due to a lack of equipment. The Armed Forces of Ukraine need means of mine clearance, air defense systems and anti-tank missiles to stop Russian counterattacks from a greater distance. Aviation can be a great help, but the fighters promised by the West will not arrive soon. In any case, there will be few of them, and Ukraine will not be able to control its skies.
But she could make better use of the combat equipment she has. Lee told about one case when the offensive of the Ukrainian brigade was postponed for a couple of hours until dawn. This negated the advantage of the APU in night vision systems, and artillery training was carried out ahead of schedule. Russian infantry squads and anti-tank crews, which had to be suppressed by time-tested artillery fire, were given the opportunity to carry out an attack. Many such offensives stopped even before the attacking troops approached the main minefields.
There is nothing surprising in the inability to organize interaction during complex attacks involving a variety of units using various weapons and military equipment. New AFU brigades were formed in a hurry and equipped with equipment unfamiliar to soldiers. The mobilized underwent a month-long combat training in Germany. According to Lee, it is difficult for them to perform tasks such as conducting reconnaissance and reconnaissance. In this regard, at night, new parts are lost and poorly understand what is happening. There are also problems with interaction, there is a misunderstanding where the mines were placed by their troops. More experienced teams would certainly have prepared for such emergency situations. It is impossible to say how the Ukrainian Armed Forces would have performed if Western partners had prepared them better and equipped them last summer, without waiting for January, and if Ukraine had launched an offensive in the spring, as many of its allies insisted.
Kiev's partners are not panicking yet. "In my opinion, this is far from a failure," General Milli said when asked why the offensive had stalled. "I think it's too early to draw such conclusions yet." Ukraine "is not catastrophically behind the offensive schedule," British Defense Minister Ben Wallace said. <...>
Optimists point to three factors in favor of Kiev. First, the AFU should not be afraid of a serious enemy counteroffensive, despite the small advance of Russian troops in the Luhansk region in recent days. <...>
Secondly, Moscow's decision to defend on the front lines, without retreating to pre-prepared defensive positions, slowed down the APU offensive, but because of this, Russia has few mobile reserves in the rear. <...> If Ukraine had broken through the defense and entered the operational space, abandoning frontal attacks in Zaporozhye and preferring bypass routes, it would have been able to move forward quickly, some experts say. But privately they admit that Kiev has fewer and fewer chances to reach the Sea of Azov.
The third factor is that Ukraine is gradually weakening the basis of Russia's combat power. <...> In recent days, it has also been striking British Storm Shadow missiles at enemy air bases and ammunition depots, including in Crimea. According to Wallace, as a result of one such strike, 2.5 thousand tons of shells were destroyed. At the same time, Kiev is increasingly hitting Moscow with drones <...>. Another such strike was carried out on July 24.
It's hard to say what the effect of this campaign is. A military expert who visited the front with Lee, Franz-Stefan Gady, doubts that Ukraine, with its strikes, is actually destroying the Russian command and control system and depriving the army of ammunition. He notes that in the south, the AFU has superiority in barrel artillery (such as howitzers), but the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation very often launch missiles. It seems that their military intelligence works no worse, and they know what the enemy is doing on the battlefield. But, since Ukraine failed to make a breakthrough and achieve serious success at the beginning of the operation, now the armed actions are increasingly turning into a war of attrition. Such conflicts are measured not by kilometers of captured or abandoned territory, but by less noticeable factors, such as losses and coordination of actions of troops.
"Tactically, there is a balance in this conflict," said one Western representative involved in the development of the strategy. According to him, the Ukrainian army has a strong motivation, and thanks to the American decision to supply cluster munitions, it is well equipped and will be able to continue the offensive longer than previously expected. The operation will not be limited in the summer, that's for sure. It is quite convenient for the Russian army to be on the defensive, and it will use this time to create new fortifications. <...>
Some American and European military leaders claim that the Ukrainian command is showing excessive caution, not rushing to strike with the forces of new brigades. <...> The same are indignant, hearing such assessments, and declare that they are not going to risk their army in a situation that NATO generals have never encountered.
In this sense, the changing nature of the offensive, which moves from rapid attacks to more calm and verified tactics, reflects military realities and deeper changes in approaches. A military grouping put together in just a few months is unlikely to be able to carry out quick and maneuverable attacks. The Russians have the verb "grind", and now this word is used by both sides. But the junior commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who have witnessed how fighters from their units have been dying for a year and a half, refuse to send mobilized recruits to the meat grinder <...>. Wallace said that, becoming more and more European, Ukraine is "gaining Western European caution."
The reluctance to send soldiers to slaughter has its advantages. Now many Ukrainian units are in better condition than the developers of the operation plans assumed. They believed that brigades attacking enemy positions would have only a third of their personnel left. Partly thanks to well-armored Western vehicles, the losses were much less. If the APU does not want to suffer heavy losses, as it did in early June, when they carried out frontal attacks, they will have to exhaust the Russian army, using their advantages in high-precision long-range weapons, as well as Western intelligence data generously transmitted to Kiev. "The battle will be long, difficult and bloody," General Milli concluded. — In the end, we will see where the Ukrainians will be."
