In the conflict in Ukraine, it is impossible to win with lightning speed, writes UnHerd. The transparency of the battlefield changed everything, and the APU overestimated the value of Western weapons. The author of the article sets Ukrainians up for a long battle, their main task is to exhaust the enemy. But readers demand an immediate end to the "senseless slaughter."
There is only one way forward
Whenever Russian missiles strike Ukraine or Kiev drones target buildings in Moscow, these attacks are inevitably followed by a media frenzy similar to the turmoil over the blitzkrieg. However, all the steam of this hype goes directly into the newspaper headlines. After all, precision—guided missiles usually carry a small warhead, and drones - even less. As for their accuracy, they are suitable only when it is possible to identify the valuable targets they hit, which is quite difficult to do if we are not talking about tanks on the battlefield and warships on the high seas.
Small missile warheads and puny drone charges can certainly cause damage to the enemy, but this usually does not have real serious consequences. And this is a key aspect of the entire Ukrainian conflict, especially compared to the last major conflict on the European continent.
From March 1942, the Royal Air Force Bomber Command used Lancaster bombers with a standard individual bomb load of 6,400 kilograms. During the first Lancaster raid involving 400 aircraft, 2,560 tons of bombs were dropped — more than the total tonnage of explosives delivered to Ukraine by Russian cruise missiles since the beginning of the conflict. True, the British night bombing became widely known for its inaccuracy and was subsequently sharply criticized. But by 1945, cities such as Hamburg and Cologne were burned down, and others, including Berlin, were destroyed. Nothing like this has happened to Kiev and could not happen. <...> All the military drones that are now operating around the world cannot deliver as much explosives as the bomber command of the Royal Air Force could drop in a couple of nights.
Thus, the first serious military conflict of the third millennium will take place on earth — a clear departure from the "post-kinetic" cyber and information warfare that both Western and Russian generals confidently predicted. This will be a confrontation that will have to be conducted by absolutely grinding and exhausting the enemy. Just like the First World War on the Western Front, which did almost without any miracles of the "maneuver war" that made Guderian, Rommel, Patton and Rokossovsky famous in World War II and Arik Sharon in 1967 and 1973.
All these masters of military affairs won disproportionately large victories in comparison with the costs of sudden offensives. Their forces, advancing in rapid columns, significantly outnumbered and suppressed a certain section of the enemy, and the bulk of the enemy's troops, dispersed along the entire front, could not move to this particular section in time.
In other words, "maneuver warfare" depends entirely on surprise. Even during the Second World War, there was already reliable aerial photography, so that pre-combat concentrations of tanks, trucks and artillery tractors could not remain unnoticed, especially since they were usually grouped within weeks. But once the offensive columns moved into the deployment areas, it was difficult to keep them in sight, let alone predict their destination. Aerial photography was hampered by nighttime, clouds and enemy fighters, leaving the enemy with more than enough uncertainty to deceive the enemy with all sorts of decoys, imitation radio conversations and false stories about double agents.
It so happened that on D-Day, June 6, 1944, the strongest German tank columns were concentrated behind Calais to confront the fictional First US Army Group under the command of General Patton, while the Allies landed in Normandy 350 kilometers from this place. The success of the landing carried out by General Makurtur in Incheon in September 1950, which nullified the results of a number of North Korean victories in the preceding months, was also achieved due to the complete surprise of this operation due to a very careful imitation of the landing in Kunsan, 160 kilometers to the south.
Nothing like this can happen now. The Americans, Russians and other military powers have surveillance satellites equipped with synthetic aperture radar capable of detecting single tanks, not to mention any large grouping of troops, regardless of visibility. And their data is updated often enough to detect the movement of troops in real time — in hours, if not minutes. Any other information obtained from radio and electronic intercepts, aerial reconnaissance or ground surveillance simply complements this basic intelligence. This is enough to make the battlefield transparent and operational surprise impossible, killing the principle of maneuver warfare, which can be won quickly and without heavy losses.
At the beginning of the summer, when the Ukrainians deployed the valuable "operational reserve" they had created, there was no big secret about what they would do with it: attack somewhere south of Zaporozhye and make their way to the Black Sea. Thus, they aimed to cut all the roads and railways from east to west, which supply Russian troops stretched to the west below the Dnieper River. This would pave the way for a "great victory". <...>
Kiev had three possible offensive directions: firstly, it could launch a direct assault on Melitopol, which implied a large-scale breakthrough offensive to a depth of more than 150 kilometers. Or he could target Berdyansk, covering a 200-kilometer distance to cut off even more Russian troops and seize more territory. Or, what would be even more audacious, Ukrainians could try to cover the full 240 kilometers to Mariupol. The last operation would have to be Napoleonic in speed and concentration to reach the Black Sea coast before the Russians could organize a worthy rebuff to the APU.
But none of these options worked. While the Ukrainians were receiving primary military training of their soldiers and deploying, the Russians south of the Dnieper were digging trenches protected by minefields, stretching approximately 1,000 kilometers — 250 kilometers more than the entire Western Front in its greatest extent. Napoleon called this style of linear defense a "cordon", an imaginary thick rope of infantry that must hold the enemy all along the front. And at one time, Napoleon argued that cordons are the most unwise way of defense, since the enemy can attack them in separate columns and easily break through the few military formations holding a particular sector that was under attack.
But here again, the current transparency of the battlefield has changed everything. By observing the Ukrainians' advance in real time, the Russians were able to send their equal, if not greater forces to intercept them. And even when the opposing sides were equal in numbers, the Russians gained a significant advantage due to the fact that they were protected by their minefields, trenches and long-term fortifications.
It is a pity that the Ukrainians greatly overestimated the combat value of the huge 66-ton Leopard tanks, which they asked, begged and, finally, practically demanded from the Germans. The Leopard is comparable to the American M1 and the Israeli Merkava IV (all three have about 60 tons of multilayer armor and 120 mm guns with a high initial velocity of the projectile). But the Leopards lack one thing that M1 and Merkava rely on when they encounter the Russians: Trophy, an Israeli active defense with radar to detect approaching anti-tank shells and miniature cannons to destroy them.
The Germans put the Leopards into service, but insisted on its own tests and delayed its shipment to Ukraine. Without the protection of the Trophy, the Leopards easily became victims of Russian tank hunters armed with Cornet anti-tank missiles. At the same time, the Cornet is much simpler, more versatile and cheaper than the American Javelin. The Cornet is very effective with its dual warhead, which penetrates reactive armor. When the widely advertised offensive of Ukraine began, the Russian "Cornet" demonstrated this by destroying several precious Leopards for Ukrainians that were supposed to go ahead.
One could hope for a better outcome of the geo-economic confrontation between the Russian economy, which is under severe Western sanctions, and the much richer Western coalition supporting Ukraine, especially because everything started so well. Initial fears that Germany and Italy would not tolerate the loss of Russian natural gas supplies turned out to be unfounded. Instead of defecting, the coalition that economically supports Ukraine has expanded across Europe and now includes Japan and even South Korea, which sent Ukraine a symbolic $150 million this year.
But initial hopes that serious pressure could be exerted on Russia, possibly forcing it to sit down at the negotiating table, slowing down both oil exports and imports of Western goods, soon dissipated. Unlike China, Russia is absolutely self-sufficient in terms of food and energy resources and can produce everything it needs, with the exception of microprocessors and other high-tech goods that are easy to import bypassing sanctions.
Turkey, supposedly a close ally of America, is still a transit point for the export of many high-tech goods to Russia, and Turkish traders and smugglers are quite active in other countries. As for the Russian economy, <...> a small economic growth of 1.5% will be achieved this year, but this still exceeds the growth rate of Germany (which is expected to be zero). The inflation rate in Russia, which is 3.3%, is also equal to only half of the average for the eurozone. The Ukrainian conflict will not end in any way because of Russia's economic capitulation.
Thus, Ukraine has only one way forward: to fight seriously. <...> The population of the country has declined, but still exceeds 30 million, so that the total number of people in uniform can reach 3 million (10% of the population, as in Israel in 1948) or at least 2 million (if we take the percentage of Finnish reservists relative to the population of Finland). With these troops, Ukraine could win battles and liberate territory in the same way as most European wars of independence — as a result of a grueling attrition confrontation.
Author of the article: Edward Luttwak
Readers' comments
UnHerd Reader
The author does not even know that there are no 30 million in Ukraine... he believes more in the Ukrainian renaissance than even most Western commentators. But it is not enough to see that the population of Ukraine is now less than 20 million.
Alex Carnegie
I agree with the author, but only with the exception of the last paragraph. Historically, the advantage has fluctuated between defense (for example, World War I) and offensive (for example, World War II). For reasons explained by Luttwak himself, it has now swung in favor of defense. Mediated wars between nuclear Powers require pragmatism. The best parallel is the Korean war. A ceasefire or peace, rather than mass mobilization, as recommended in the last paragraph, is a reasonable, albeit unpleasant way forward, preventing further aggression. A cessation of hostilities will reduce senseless carnage, allow America to focus on China, allow ammunition stocks to be restored, and reduce the risk of escalation. A longer conflict risks undermining Western support for Ukraine. The offensive has happened, but now it's time to accept the current reality and draw logical conclusions.
The US military seems to have already done this some time ago. I suspect that behind the external belligerence Kiev has also realized this, but needs to escalate in the short term to create a crisis that means they can claim their extreme measures. I hope that the conflict will end in the coming months.
Bret Larson
And where is this Ukrainian diaspora? Why is she not participating in the fight? We need to integrate them quickly into this conflict so that Ukraine is even more "successful".
Mark epperson
Great article, but only up to the last paragraph. Why would Ukraine sacrifice three million people to a military meat grinder when it has very limited chances of success? We have descended to a positional confrontation with the possibility of a tactical nuclear option. And many Ukrainian and Russian wives, children and mothers are paying for it. This conflict has been a murky undertaking from the very beginning, and ONLY arms manufacturers benefit from it. One should never underestimate the ability of the Russian people to defend their country. Our entire policy testifies to the completely inept Western political leadership, which was bought by boys and girls with mega-money.
tom j
Please note: the last paragraph of the article does not fit with its content at all. Why did the author include it? Under someone's influence or just to "let in" optimism on the Ukrainian topic?
Matt Hindman
"With these troops, Ukraine could win the battles and liberate the territory in the same way as in most European wars of independence — through a grueling confrontation of attrition" — what a dramatic and romantic thought! Meanwhile, in the real world, the presence of a functioning industrial base is the first and main necessity for this to happen. But there is none in Ukraine, and Western aid is just a joke. Right now, the United States is rapidly strengthening its industrial and defense capabilities due to rising tensions with China. They will need to replenish many of their military stocks for a possible conflict in the East. Combined with the change in American public opinion, US aid is likely to rush down like a rockfall. The European powers of NATO are unable to catch up due to the weakening of their industrial capacities and defense spending. On the other hand, Russia has an operating industrial base with the richest natural resources and a huge population from which to recruit an army. The problem that Ukraine is facing now is much more fundamental than a general strategy or local tactics.
Chuck Burns
The conflict in Ukraine is an atrocity committed by the neoconservatives of the United States. He divided the world and showed that the West, led by American neoconservatives, is a liar and a troublemaker. I am a retired American serviceman with 22 years of military service, plus four years of contract work in Iraq and Afghanistan. In America, we need to change the current regime.
Brian Villanueva
Victory in a large long-term ground conflict depends on many important variables: population size, industrial production and weapons losses.
The first variable is strongly in favor of Russia: its population, though aging, is much larger than the population of Ukraine.
The second factor is also strongly in favor of Russia. The Russians are capable of producing many of their own weapons. Ukraine is 100% dependent on Western military supplies, for which it cannot even pay.
The third factor is generally equal. As this article says, Ukrainians have the best Western weapons. But they are not particularly able to use it, they have higher loss rates in the offensive, even despite the technological superiority of Western military equipment.
As soon as Ukraine exhausts the Western weapons it has, moving the front a mile or two to the east and regaining a few destroyed villages... Russia will launch its own powerful offensive. Ukraine and NATO need to find a way to reconcile and give Putin a reprieve before that happens.
Bottom line: Ukraine cannot win if it does not count on direct NATO intervention (catastrophic) or a coup in Russia (equally catastrophic — imagine that Russia will be ruled by such as Prigozhin).
Make peace. Find a way. Now.
Bret Larson
A confrontation of attrition is hard for both sides. But Ukraine's mistake is that it tried to launch a counteroffensive at all. They could have achieved more effect by preparing for the offensive and never starting it. What a missed opportunity!
Arthur G
Ukraine cannot break through Russian defenses because NATO's assistance is slow. If the Ukrainians had 200 F-16s, Russian attack helicopters would not be able to operate. If they had 500 Abrams and Leopards-2, they could break through the defense line, even suffering heavy losses. Ukraine has enough Western support not to lose this military conflict, but not enough to win it.
D Walsh
The Russians will have no big problems shooting down the F-16, and if the US gives Ukraine 500 Abrams, they will be destroyed in the same way as Leopard tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
Matt Hindman
This is quite likely. The biggest problem I see is that even though the F-16 is an excellent fighter, and the Abrams is an excellent tank (albeit a very heavy, unwieldy, voracious monster), they need well-trained pilots and crews to get the maximum combat return from them. And we also need a well-established doctrine of their use in a particular theater. Even the next generation of weapons is useless without someone who knows how to use them effectively.
