Ukraine: a test of resolve

By Richard North - May 29, 2022

Although Ukraine is a nation at war, there often seems to be a sense that the tempo of hostilities slows over the weekends – or perhaps it is a matter of the reporting of events. Either way, this weekend is no different, with very little new to report on the fighting,

The narrative earlier in the weekend started off with an optimistic account from the Ukrainians asserting that the Russian army had suffered significant losses and had been forced to retreat in the area of Sievierodonetsk, Toshkivka and Oskolonivka.

This was according to Serhii Haidai, head of the Luhansk Regional Military Administration, who also conceded that another bridge between Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk had been damaged. But he confirmed that passage between the cities remains. Sievierodonetsk in particular was not encircled.

Nevertheless, the Russians were still attempting to interdict Ukrainian supplies to the Luhansk region, they had shelled Sievierodonetsk several times, and there was street fighting on the outskirts of the city.

Zelensky, however, had his own script which affirmed that, despite their more recent setbacks, the Russians were continuing to make “incremental gains”. Despite that, he promised that Donbass would be “Ukrainian again”.

Later, though, Zelenskiy expanded on this comment, reaffirming his belief that Moscow would come to the negotiating table if his country seized back all the land taken by Russia since its 24 February invasion.

Meanwhile, Mark Galeotti, one of the media’s favourite pundits, had been hard at work. A “desperate” Putin, he said, was deluded to think he could win. Yet, “insulated in his circle of yes-men, desperate to salvage his legacy, the Russian president was “not ready to back down in Ukraine”.

And while the Russians were making some progress, he added, any Kremlin celebration would be misplaced: Russia was still losing and some short-term successes left them worse-off in the long run.

On the other hand, the Sunday Times, prefers to sit on the fence, declaring that, after almost a hundred days of war, the Russian offensive in Ukraine is finally beginning to look more coherent, if not yet strategically wise or sustainable.

Russian forces, it reminds us, have secured a land bridge between the Donbas region and Crimea which will be hard for the Ukrainians to liberate — though equally hard for the Russians to pacify.

Ukrainian armed forces have conducted a remarkably successful dynamic defence over this time, not holding static lines but hitting Russian forces at their points of greatest vulnerability and counter attacking them when and where it really mattered, creating a balance of loss in their favour.

Although the paper goes into some detail about Russian personnel losses, minimally estimated at 15,000 dead, it also notes that Ukrainian personnel losses have been stacking up more quickly in recent weeks. Yet, it still believes that Ukraine has so far been winning its battle for survival against an aggressive neighbour ten times its size.

But clearly, in the past week Kiev’s tone of triumphal defiance has changed as it faces what the paper describes as “steamroller tactics” in the Donbass, where the Russians have concentrated their previously underperforming forces in much smaller areas to undertake so-called “bite and hold” operations across Luhansk.

So much is the concept of the encirclement battle embedded in the media DNA that the paper insists that, having surrounded Sievierodonetsk on three sides some weeks ago, Russian forces now seem to be very close to closing the encirclement on the fourth side – which they are not. The twin city of Lysychansk and the Siverskyi Donets river prevents that happening.

Nor indeed, as the paper otherwise asserts, are the Russians close to linking up with their forces in Lyman, further north, or those battling from the south in the Popasna direction. to create a bigger encirclement. At no time has the Russian military demonstrated the capability to complete the complex and risky, all arms manoeuvre warfare required.

On the face of it, the plodding “bite and hold” style of operation currently being implemented is the antithesis of the swift blitzkrieg thrust needed to close the trap on some of Ukraine’s most powerful and capable forces.

Nevertheless, the paper is right in positing that Ukrainian commanders are facing the prospect of continuing the fight in Sievierodonetsk, or evacuating the city and withdrawing westward to form new defensive lines on the high ground east of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.

What will most likely force that latter move is the difficulty of supplying and reinforcing the dwindling forces in the pocket over the damaged bridge across the Siverskyi Donets, which is swept by Russian artillery.

Any new defence positions, though, would be weaker than the current, heavily fortified lines, anchored on the Siverskyi Donets, which has been held by Ukrainian forces since 2014. A strategic withdrawal, on the face of it, might look attractive, but this option has its own dangers.

What seems to be the favoured option is the provision of high-intensity counter-batter fire to relieve the pressure on the entrenched positions and to beat back Russian interdiction fire which is hampering re-supply efforts and limiting the ability to field timely and effective reinforcements.

Thus, we see a sustained political campaign – described by the Observer as “a race against time” – aimed at persuading the United States to release advanced multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).

With each unit able to lay down a devastating weight of fire, accurately over a range in excess of 30 km, this equipment is believed to be the game changer which will enable to Ukrainians to dominate the battlefield.

But there is also talk of supplying the M-142 HIMARS variant, which has a range of up to 500 km (between 186 to 300 miles) which would enable the Ukrainians to reach targets well inside Russia. Predictably, this is seen by Russia as a provocation that could trigger retaliation against the US.

Using state television as a mouthpiece, the Kremlin has “inspired” Olga Skabeyeva, host of the 60 Minutes chat show on the Russia-1 channel, to declare that if the Americans do supply that equipment, “they will clearly be crossing a red line and we would have witnessed an attempt to provoke a very harsh response from Russia”.

Ongoing disagreements in Washington have said to have held up deliveries, although US news outlets have reported that president Biden has agreed in principle that the Ukrainians should have the equipment, There is some confusion about which weapons system is to be provided though, with the White House and the Pentagon yet to confirm media reports.

The supply of this equipment is now being seen as the ultimate test of Western support for Ukraine. Peter Ricketts, former UK national security adviser, is cited by the Observer as saying, “Having supported Ukraine and encouraged them to stand up to Russian aggression in the early phase, we’ve now got a real obligation to see it through for the long term”.

Given the time-sensitive nature of battlefield equipment, arrival of the equipment in theatre could signal more than just a significant enhancement in striking power. It could send a message that the West is fully committed to the fight, and there for the long term.

If it also helps break what is increasingly seen as a stalemate in Donbass, it could also herald a new phase in the war. As always, the results may not be entirely predictable.