Six months of stalemate are ending as Ukraine prepares its offensive and Russia begins its. Russia hopes to expand its occupation and secure a partial victory. Ukraine hopes to liberate its territory in one shattering blow, if possible, or step-by-step, if necessary. By late spring, the long-term course of the war may be clear.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Russia seems determined to launch an offensive even though the smart move would be to let the Ukrainians beat themselves against prepared positions. This determination arises for both military and political reasons. Militarily, Russia has regenerated enough capability to conduct major attacks. The Russian armed forces have incorporated the manpower produced by the partial mobilization of the fall. That mobilization was chaotic with stories abounding about administrative inefficiency and popular resistance. Nevertheless, the effort has produced thousands of soldiers who have filled the depleted ranks of existing units and created new units. Russia has also dug into its vast reserve of older equipment to replace the thousands of weapons lost.
Training for the mobilized troops has been uneven with some apparently sent directly to the front while others have gone through structured programs. Nevertheless, the quality may be sufficient. These Russian units do not need to face high-quality forces like those of the United States or Israel. They are facing the Ukrainian military which, although strongly committed to the defense of its homeland, has units of uneven quality.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated his intention to "liberate" Ukraine, especially the Donbas. With the large number of Russian speakers, the Donbas is his highest priority. The expectation had been that this offensive would erupt like the massive Soviet offensives of World War II. Instead, Russia has increased its attacks in the Donbas region in the last two weeks, and this may represent the beginning of its offensive. These appear to be infantry assaults preceded by massive artillery bombardments. Russia is particularly focused on the Bakhmut area and is trying to surround the town. Their intention is to secure more territory and bleed Ukrainian forces. This combat looks like World War I with high infantry casualties for small gains against strongly prepared defensive positions.
For Russia, this may be a make-or-break offensive. It is unclear whether it could rebuild its military again given its losses of quality equipment and popular resistance to manpower mobilization.
Ukraine does not have the option of simply defending and waiting. Because its territory has been occupied, it must go on to the offensive. As with France in World War I, stalemate is defeat.
Ukraine's challenge is that attacking is much more complex than defending. Attack requires greater exposure to adversary fire. To have the highest prospect for success, attacking forces must use all the combat arms together – infantry, tanks, artillery, engineers, and airpower. This will be challenging because many of Ukraine's units are partially trained militia and even the best units have lost many skilled personnel. Ukraine's forces did show skill in recapturing Kherson and the area east of Kharkiv. Nevertheless, they had significant advantages in these attacks. Russian units in the Kharkiv region were second-rate security troops and militias while at Kherson Russian forces were extremely exposed in a bridgehead. The next offensive may not have these advantages.
Fortunately, the Ukrainian military has been getting stronger as the immense amount of military equipment, totaling $30 billion from the United States alone, replaces losses, enhances capability, and equips all the new units created after the invasion. As important as the new equipment is, training is equally important. Some of this training is on the new NATO systems arriving in Ukraine. More broadly, however, the UK is providing basic training to the Ukrainian troops and the United States is providing battalion-level training.
Ukraine's military and population show great resilience and could likely continue the struggle for years. Ukraine's challenge is political: sustaining the vital flow of supplies from the US, NATO, and the global community. Without these supplies, Ukrainian resistance would falter within a few weeks. The Biden administration has been adamant that its support is unequivocal and open-ended. However, recent reports indicate the administration's concern about how long the high level of aid can be sustained.
The peace parties in the US and Europe are gaining strength. Impelled by concerns about civilian casualties (the Left), waste (the Right), and diversion of funds from domestic needs (both sides), negotiations appear attractive. However, any negotiation would likely produce an in-place cease-fire, which would constitute a de facto Russian victory. As the United States learned in Afghanistan to its sorrow, negotiations reflect battlefield realities.
The outcome of the offensives will tell us a lot about the future of the conflict. Substantial Russian success would solidify its position for future negotiations. Ukrainian success would give hope for the eventual liberation of its territory and assure its supporters that this is not a "forever" war. The next few weeks will, therefore, set the course for the remainder of the war.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
