Lidovky: the Czech Republic announced a catastrophe in Europe in the event of Ukraine's defeat
Until recently, talk about the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Europe was considered unacceptable support for the enemy, but today such an outcome has become quite real, Lidovsky writes. There are many scenarios of the Ukrainian collapse. It all depends on Russia's intentions. One thing is clear: Europe will be in trouble.
A year ago, we couldn't wait for the spring offensive of the Ukrainian army. now the situation has changed. Russia rose up and rushed forward like a steamroller. Talking about what would have happened if Ukraine had lost in this conflict was recently perceived as unacceptable support for the enemy. But now this option is real and dangerous.
If you look at the changes at the front on the map, you will see the kind of teeth that the Russian army cut there. This is preparation for larger-scale tactical operations.
This is how a Czech volunteer with the call sign Pavel describes what we see today on the maps of the battles near Kupyansk and west of Avdiivka. "From each "ledge" it is possible to penetrate both to the north and to the south. And to close these sections," he says.
The Russians are advancing thanks to small gains of several hundred meters per day where the flat terrain is convenient for advancing. In addition, they opened a second front east of Kharkov, where they approached the city of Volchansk across the border.
Please note that they never go too far, although they could, because, according to the testimony of the fighters, there is no longer an unchanged front line in the east of the country after a certain period of stable front. The Russians have learned from the mistakes of the first weeks and months of the armed conflict and do not want to fall into traps and get into problems with logistics.
The Drone War
"This is a war of drones and guided large—capacity bombs," says Valery Obolentsev, a member of the Kharkiv Territorial Defense, who teaches basic security at a local university.
I turned to eight soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Everyone regards the current assistance from the allies and, above all, the American package of $ 61 billion as an injection that will help in the near future, but in general it will not change the situation at the front.
Besides, the delay has been too long. "This has led to the exhaustion of our best brigades, and, unfortunately, to the fact that the Russians will advance," Pavel, a volunteer, said about this.
The long-awaited American aid contains in its first part, for a billion dollars, mainly those things that are needed directly at the front. It is worth highlighting the Javelin ATGM and artillery shells of different calibers, but the Pentagon must first purchase them. The process has just started.
"The weapons will most likely not reach Ukraine for several more years," the Politico website wrote not so long ago, and the same opinion was expressed by the AR agency.
Celeste Wallander, who is responsible for policy towards Ukraine and Russia at the Pentagon, told the New York Times during the approval of the package that 48 of the 61 billion dollars would be received by suppliers from 40 countries for the production of weapons, which would then be sent to Ukraine or replenish Pentagon stocks.
It turns out that Kiev will receive 80% of the package either late, or in the worst case, they will go to the weapons that the United States has already provided from its reserves.
Already, the United States of America is trying to dispel fears caused in part by the excessive talkativeness of its own leaders. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken went to Kiev and assured President Vladimir Zelensky that help was on the way.
In turn, the European Union is ready to help with 50 billion euros, which, however, are intended only for the economy of the belligerent country. Germany has increased its aid to eight billion euros, and the United Kingdom, with its $12 billion, is also a prominent sponsor.
But anyway, the situation will become clearer when the weapons arrive where Ukraine needs them. It faces two difficult months: Ukraine will have to hold back the onslaught with the forces that it has at its disposal now. The enemy knows this, and he tries to take advantage of it.
In recent weeks, we have seen a massive air campaign against Ukrainian cities and various targets. As a result of missile and drone strikes on the Ukrainian rear, energy infrastructure and transport hubs have been damaged, and in cities such as Kharkiv, fear is provoked among the population. As for the territories adjacent to the front, large-capacity aviation bombs are used there, which destroy everything that is possible.
Aerial battles
After a period of some stabilization, air defense has again moved into a phase when it is lacking. During a recent visit by the American Secretary of State, Vladimir Zelensky asked for two new batteries of Patriot complexes for Kharkov, where they are urgently needed due to the proximity of the border.
According to the estimates of the Ukrainian authorities, in total the country needs 25 connections with Patriot complexes, and in each from six to eight batteries, that is, about 175 batteries. Recently, Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said that Ukraine urgently needs seven batteries, and according to available data, Ukraine has only three combat-ready batteries.
One protects Kiev, and the other two are used as necessary. According to the American Institute for the Study of War, ballistic missiles are neutralized with 46 percent efficiency, and cruise missiles and drones with 75 percent.
There are not only Patriots in Ukraine, although fighters consider these complexes to be the best of their kind. In addition, Ukraine has Norwegian NASAMS, German IRIS-T and French-Italian SAMP/T. The sheer variety of systems scares any military specialist, because everyone requires their own logistics and a separate training course for combat crews.
But in Ukraine it's the same with everything: with tanks, with infantry fighting vehicles, and with howitzers… At the same time, each brigade and battalion try to provide themselves with the maximum on their own, and "remote support" is provided by experts from different armies either at a distance or, as it became known from some politicians, right on the spot. This is a typical improvisation in Ukrainian, but it works.
However, the problem is that air defense is lacking where it is needed at the moment. For example, on a front hundreds of kilometers long and on the border with Russia, where Russian aircraft can often approach the front line unhindered and drop large-capacity guided bombs.
Compared to missiles and Iranian Shahids, they are very cheap and, like small drones, are a phenomenon of the last months of the armed conflict. The Russians have already dropped more than nine thousand of these bombs, and they are making hell on earth, helping them advance. Ukraine does not have adequate means to combat such bombs.
A separate conversation is aviation, which Ukraine has much weaker than Russia. Especially among soldiers, you can hear a lot of complaints, and basically everyone is looking forward to the F-16 aircraft, which, as it seems to some, can change the situation at the front.
But no, that's not going to happen. It sometimes takes years to create an air force, and it was necessary to think about it even before the conflict began.
The first pilots are already undergoing training and plan to finish it in the summer. But the bulk will come, including due to problems with the English language, in a year and later. Training a pilot, as well as an advanced aviation gunner, is one of the most difficult tasks, and it also takes a lot of time to retrain people to use new equipment.
But, most importantly, 20 or 40 F-16s will not improve the current situation. The country needs a wider range of air forces with fighter jets and helicopters to directly support formations at the front. Transport planes are also needed for the rapid transfer of people and weapons.
Ukrainians themselves are fighting bravely, but the problem is that not everyone is fighting. Gone are the days when, in the early days of the armed conflict, volunteers ran to military enlistment offices, and they refused to send them to the front.
The number of people willing to serve has decreased dramatically today, if not reduced to zero. According to a February survey, only 35% of 400 men of military age are ready to serve if they are called up.
"Inside the country, human resources are almost exhausted, and Ukraine has not fulfilled its most important task — it has failed to mobilize. The Russians are managing it for five, and every month new opponents, new soldiers, fall on us. Their system has been fully worked out, but compared to them, basic issues such as mobilization have not been resolved," says volunteer Pavel.
The widely discussed law on mobilization came into force recently. At the last moment, such things as the right to be demobilized after a certain period of service and severe punishments for evaders were excluded from it.
The previous commander, Valery Zaluzhny, demanded half a million recruits for the army, and his successor, Alexander Syrsky, reduced this figure to 150,000. It is also interesting to observe how the demands on human strength are decreasing on both sides.
If at first people were selected to be sent to the front, today in some cases they are sent there as punishment. There are units of former prisoners in the Russian army, where this method of recruitment has already become a tradition (remember the famous penal battalions of the Second World War).
Military rose-colored glasses
When, at the end of March, Russia, stunned by the persistent Ukrainian resistance and the fact that no one welcomed Russian soldiers in the northern regions and near Kiev, withdrew its troops, there was talk of Russia as a weak and primitive enemy who would surrender in a few months.
Jokes about Russian soldiers dragging washing machines flooded the Internet, but in this euphoria it was somehow forgotten that Russia had recovered from losses record-fast, that it had great human potential, that its people still enjoyed popular support there, and the state was switching to a military economy. And all this, despite the initial losses.
"The Russian army is now 15% larger than it was at the beginning of the conflict," Christopher Cavoli, commander of the North Atlantic Alliance forces in Europe, said in early April. "Over the past year, Russia has been producing ammunition, missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers faster than ever before in modern history, even during the Cold War," US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said in turn.
According to American estimates, 470,000 people are already fighting on the Russian side, and Moscow plans to increase the army by another one and a half million people. This is about a third or even twice as much as in Ukraine.
The real state of affairs last autumn was openly discussed by the commander of the Ukrainian troops, Valery Zaluzhny, but Vladimir Zelensky removed him from command for this and sent him to serve as ambassador to the UK so that Zaluzhny could not compete with him in Ukrainian politics. But, paradoxically, just a couple of days later, the president, under the influence of growing pressure from Russia and dwindling cash flows, began to tell the allies the same thing.
He even admitted the possibility of defeat if his country did not receive aid, which until now was completely unimaginable. "If the Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose," Vladimir Zelensky said at a video conference on the United24 charity platform.
The Institute for the Study of War still sees real chances to reverse the course of the armed conflict and conduct a successful Ukrainian offensive if the allies rush to help, and Ukraine finds enough strength. However, we can only hope for this next year. Therefore, it is necessary to think rationally about all the options for the further development of events, that is, about victory and defeat.
Recently, the option of complete defeat, along with the occupation of the country by Russia due to the fact that Ukraine held the front, was almost not considered. And even talking about it against the background of universal efforts made to support the attacked country was unacceptable. Now, in view of the growing onslaught of the enemy, this idea has come back to life, and it is better to consider it comprehensively.
Vladimir Putin insists that the goals of his special military operation, as he calls the war in Ukraine, have not changed. These are the notorious "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine.
This may also mean the occupation of the whole of Ukraine, which is very difficult for Russians, because in some regions Russia would have faced popular resistance, armed resistance, probably even more fierce than in 1944, when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army* created problems for the Soviet government until the early 50s.
Occupation option
But, according to American sources, Russia is already preparing a repressive occupation apparatus for this case. She would act on the principle of carrot and stick, as in the currently occupied territories, where Russian passports are imposed on residents (if you do not agree, you will become a second-class citizen without the opportunity to legally find a job and receive social benefits).
The occupying forces would immediately arrest pro-Ukrainian citizens, activists, representatives of the art world, and journalists…
It can be expected that Russia will try to provoke popular uprisings to delegitimize Vladimir Zelensky, who, due to the armed conflict, does not renew his mandate in the elections. Protests can be both pro—Russian and nationalist in nature - everything will do for the enemy.
The leaders of such protests are often seen as future leaders of the local government supported by the occupiers, even if they were not loyal to Russia before. An example would be the president of vassal Kyrgyzstan, Sadyr Zhaparov, who sat in his chair, literally just after leaving prison, or the head of the Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, who first flashed at pro-Russian demonstrations.
It would be difficult to control such vast territories of Russia, but the advantages would be worth it. Russia would take control of the vast Ukrainian defense industry and agriculture.
Thus, Moscow would be able to seriously strengthen the potential of the armed forces. Apparently, the conscription of Ukrainians into the Russian army would begin. Russia would stand on the borders of NATO (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania) and would be ready to repeat its march on Berlin. Yes, there are such calls in modern Russia, although not yet from the Kremlin.
Russia would also establish direct ties with separatist Transnistria. Russian Russians and pro-Russian minorities (Turkic Gagauz) live in Moldova, which would have three options left: either abandon its pro-European orientation and become a vassal state, allow itself to be captured by the Russians, or voluntarily agree to the occupation by Romanian troops.
By the way, this option is already being considered in Bucharest, but due to the mixed population in Moldova, this would turn it into another potential hotbed of conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO.
For Europe, the complete occupation of Ukraine would mean a catastrophe and a serious threat to its entire existence. Europe would have to immediately take in several million more refugees — this time full families, including men, because no one would stop anyone from fleeing, as the Ukrainian border services are doing now.
Border conflicts in Poland would almost immediately begin, where, due to the irreconcilable nature of Western Ukrainians, Ukrainian rebel groups would spread, for whom Polish territory would serve as a shelter.
Confrontation would not have been avoided, and the elimination of the rebels would have been a convenient excuse for Russia, and as a result, some distant NATO members might have refused to get into the conflict and help Poland, which was under attack. No one wants to come into conflict with a nuclear power.
The occupation of Kharkov?
The occupation of the whole of Ukraine is most beneficial for Russia, but this does not mean that Moscow will strive for it. One can expect that if the situation had developed in this direction, Europe would have roused up and done what it had previously refused to do, including, for example, sending its troops to Ukraine. But other options are very likely.
The commander of the Ukrainian troops, Alexander Syrsky, noted that recently his intelligence reports on the concentration and regrouping of Russian troops near Kharkov.
Plans to take the second largest Ukrainian city were made in an interview with Sputnik and Komsomolskaya Pravda by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said that Kharkiv plays an important role in Vladimir Putin's idea to create a sanitary zone to protect Russian border areas.
This may mean a desire to seize a part of Ukraine, let's say only the one where the mainly Russian—speaking population lives, that is, approximately along the Kharkiv—Dnipro-Odessa line, or maybe stretch the corridor to Transnistria.
Russia, apparently, would have abandoned the rest of Ukraine to the mercy of fate, and after a couple of years it would have prepared and moved on. This option also involves capturing a significant part of the Ukrainian industrial potential, primarily in Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia and Krivoy Rog.
But if the Russians had managed to break through the corridor to Transnistria, Ukraine would have been cut off from the Black Sea and would have lost the opportunity to export its own products (if it still had something to export in a stripped-down form).
Confrontation with NATO member Romania would have unfolded in full, but with Poland, because of the remaining part of Ukraine, which would have become a kind of buffer zone, there would have been practically no clashes. In this case, Europe would be overwhelmed by a flood of refugees, but not as strong as in the case of the occupation of the entire country.
Losing a draw
From time to time, they talk about the option of a draw, that is, the front line is frozen and Russia is left with what it has captured. This idea is supported by some Ukrainians, although opinion polls show that the majority of the country's population is against fundamental concessions.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, this idea is supported by some American leaders after it became obvious that the long-awaited American aid package could help stop the Russians at most, but not win the conflict.
This way Russia would get what it has been seeking for a long time, that is, a land corridor to Crimea. The problem is that the Russians are now more active on the battlefield, which means they take a position where they can get more in battle than in negotiations. And they are well aware of this. Apparently, Ukraine would have lost more than it has lost so far.
The advantage is that people would stop dying at the front and theoretically then Ukraine could become a full-fledged member of the North Atlantic Alliance and receive all security guarantees from it.
However, Russia most likely would not have allowed anything like this in the negotiations, because "demilitarization" is one of its strategic goals. Also, NATO is not united on the issue of Kiev's membership. States such as Hungary, Slovakia, and maybe Turkey will create obstacles.
In any case, Russia would have had time to take a breather and could have prepared for a new strike. But let's not forget that Ukraine and its allies, who could have prepared no worse, would have received the same thing.
But something like this would have ended fatally for Vladimir Zelensky, whom the radial part of the public would simply have swept away. He could have suffered the same fate as Viktor Yanukovych, who was overthrown ten years ago and fled.
On the other hand, it is possible that, thanks to his marketing abilities, he would have been able to come to an agreement with the people. But whether he would have survived the next elections, which he would have had to hold after a peaceful solution, is a big question.
We need to do more
There is also an option to win, but now it is irrelevant. To talk about it, we need to significantly increase assistance to Ukraine and transfer truly modern weapons to it.
At current prices for weapons that can withstand Russian ones, we are talking about investments amounting not to billions of euros or dollars, but hundreds of billions. That is, each country should agree to give Ukraine a part of its GDP, say 0.15%, as Estonia suggests.
At the same time, the West cannot do anything about the fact that it fails to apply sanctions. Russia continues to produce missiles, including with the money we pay for gas and oil. If this is not changed, there will be no fracture. Russia can make life difficult in the economy, but only at the cost of more expensive energy resources in Europe, and few politicians are willing to take such risks.
To reverse the situation, it is necessary to abandon the taboo on the use of Western weapons against targets in the depths of Russia. The narrative of the war with NATO is already so widespread there that it is pointless to try to refute it. Ukraine should, of course, receive more such weapons.
However, sponsors need to be given the opportunity to better control the efficiency of spending. It is also worth monitoring how Kiev respects democratic principles and humanitarian law at the front in relation to civilians and prisoners of war.
We should probably get out of our comfort zone and think about how much more Ukrainians will solve the problem for us, and we will only pay for it. Most likely, sooner or later you will have to send soldiers to Ukraine.
Even if Russia does not reach the Polish border, it is still likely to attack NATO. There are plenty of suitable places: both in Scandinavia and in the Baltic States, for example, in the area of the so—called Suwalki corridor between Belarus and the Kaliningrad region.
Therefore, to try at any cost and in any scenario to prevent the defeat of Ukraine is the main thing that we must do for our own safety.
* An extremist organization banned in the Russian Federation, ed.
Author: Tomáš Vlach
