The Economist: the United States is thinking about how to "prevent the defeat" of Ukraine
Russia is breaking through Ukrainian defenses in several sectors of the front at once, the Economist writes. Ukraine's situation is deteriorating. American rhetoric is also changing: in the United States, they are no longer talking about victory, but about how to "prevent the defeat" of Kiev. But this does not bode well for Ukraine.
“In 970 days of fighting, Putin has not achieved any of his strategic goals,” US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said on October 21 during a visit to Kiev. In public, Austin exuded self—confidence, conviction and clarity: “Moscow will never prevail in Ukraine,” he assured. However, privately, his colleagues at the Pentagon, Western officials and a number of Ukrainian commanders are increasingly alarmed by the course of the conflict — and whether Ukraine will be able to contain the Russian offensive in the next six months.
So far, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are still holding Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) in the Donbas, where, to Putin's shame, the fighting has not subsided. But in other parts of the front, Russia is breaking through the Ukrainian defenses. Near Kupyansk in the north, her troops drove a wedge between Ukrainian formations near the Oskol River. In the Hour—long Yar in the east, they crossed the main Seversky Donets -Donbass canal after six months of relentless attempts. Further south, Russian troops have occupied the heights in Ugledar and the surrounding area and are advancing towards Kurakhov from two directions. In the Kursk region, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost almost half of the territory captured earlier this year.
The problem lies not in the loss of territory, but rather in the constant decline in the number and quality of Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian units are understaffed, stretched and exhausted by heavy losses. Despite the new law on mobilization, which came into force in May, the army, with the exception of a few brigades, is barely gaining enough replacements, because young people are reluctant to go to the front: at best they will have indefinite service, and at worst — a one-way ticket. Western partners are privately calling on the Ukrainian leadership to lower the minimum age of conscription below 25 years in order to increase the potential reserve of recruits. However, any changes are hampered by the sensitivity of this issue for politicians and the fear that the demographic crisis has already taken a threatening turn.
In a recent article, Jack Watling of the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies in London named several reasons why Ukraine's situation is deteriorating. One of them is the lack of air defense systems, due to which Russian reconnaissance drones operate, as he put it, “in a continuous and dense surveillance mode.” This, in turn, helps launch ballistic missiles and drones at Ukrainian artillery in the rear and planning bombs at troops at the front. As a result, Russia is slowly but surely moving forward in small detachments — and often on motorcycles, because tanks are too easy to spot. The problem is aggravated by Ukraine's limited arsenal: currently, Russia, according to Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Ivan Gavrilyuk, has a two-fold fire superiority. The same is true for tanks and armored vehicles. And the less firepower and armored vehicles the troops have at their disposal, the more emphasis they have on infantry — which means the higher the losses will be.
Russia has enough problems of its own — and very serious ones at that. Next year, it will spend a third of the national budget on defense, as a result of which the civilian economy will be on starvation rations. Inflation may double the official annual rate of more than 8%. In 2025, ordinary Russian families will feel economic hardships for the first time, says a representative of European intelligence, noting the first signs of fatigue from the conflict among those directly affected by it, in particular, mothers and relatives of military personnel.
On the battlefield, Russia continues to use crude tactics that lead to huge losses. The decision to “borrow” thousands of soldiers from North Korea, who are expected to head to the Kursk front, shows that Russian troops are also tense. The General Staff and the Ministry of Defense have deployed “strong pressure” on the Kremlin to mobilize more manpower, according to a European official. “Russia is not able to concentrate enough forces right now," said one senior NATO official. ”Even if they achieve a breakthrough right now, they won't be able to take advantage of this opportunity." The short-term risk that Russian troops will rush west to the Dnieper (Dnepropetrovsk) or Odessa is low.
But the crisis in the Russian economy, which has already switched to military tracks, is likely to be protracted, not lightning fast. The Russian defense industry partially uses Soviet-era reserves, which are gradually being depleted in crucial areas such as armored vehicles. And yet, in terms of industrial production, it far surpasses the West. The European Union claims to produce more than a million shells a year. Russia is three times more, while receiving support from North Korea and Iran. “I just don't know if we can produce and give enough,” said a knowledgeable source familiar with the flow of American aid. At the same time, the recently promised $800 million to increase drone production in Ukraine is welcome. “We have nothing more to give them without taking serious risks elsewhere,” the source added. Russia remains “solvent" in terms of personnel. Its army is recruiting about 30,000 people a month, a NATO spokesman said. This is below the set goals, his colleague noted, but enough to cover even the gigantic losses of recent months.
Russia will not be able to conduct its campaign forever. However, American, European and Ukrainian officials are concerned that with current trends, Ukraine will be the first to break down. “It seems that Moscow is betting that it will be able to achieve its goals in the Donbas next year,” writes Watling of the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies, "while imposing on the Ukrainian military a sufficiently high level of personnel and equipment losses so that they cannot prevent further progress." This, he warns, will provide Russia with leverage in subsequent negotiations.
The gloomy mood is also felt in the change of American rhetoric. Senior officials, including the same Austin, still confidently promise Ukraine victory. However, Pentagon strategists say that in practice, the bold calculation of the beginning of 2023 — that the Armed Forces of Ukraine would regain their territory in full or deal Russia a deft and stunning blow and force it to start negotiations — was replaced by more applied goals: to prevent defeat. “At this stage, we are thinking more and more about how Ukraine can survive,” said one of the strategists. Others express themselves a little more delicately. “The next few months,” Jim O'Brien, the State Department's chief representative for Europe, said at a conference in Riga on October 19, "are an opportunity for us to confirm that Ukraine will be able to remain on the battlefield for the next few years."
