Ukraine: smoke and mirrors

By Richard North - July 1, 2022

Sometimes, when I read media reports relating to the Ukraine crisis, I seriously wonder whether I am on the same planet. Most papers and a selection of the broadcasters, for instance, were yesterday happily warbling away about Ukrainian troops getting weapons training in the UK, taking advantage of what was obviously a pre-planned media event, as most of the copy – and the quotes – look very similar.

But it’s from the likes of this from the BBC, this from the Telegraph and this from The Times that I get to learn that we’re training the hapless Ukrainians on the use of the Light Gun, apparently having promised them 50 of these weapons.

This weapon actually entered service with the British Army in 1976 and a version was also produced in the States for US forces. Although still in use with the US forces – as something of a niche weapon – unlike the British version it has been substantially upgraded, not least to resolve significant maintenance issues.

We have on the face of it, therefore, another example of the Ukrainians being palmed off with geriatric equipment. But that would not be so bad if the guns filled a gap in the Ukrainian ground forces capabilities where they were currently lacking.

When it comes to artillery, though, time and time again – from Zelensky downwards – we have been told that the need is for long range weapons which can deal with the Russian guns and drive them away, preventing them dominating the battlefield in the way that they are doing at the moment.

Yet, when it comes to the Light Gun, this – as one would expect of its 105mm bore and 37 calibre length, it is a relatively short-range weapon with the normal maximum of about 12 miles, well under the 18 miles of the Russian 152mm Msta series guns, which are giving the Ukrainians so many problems.

Furthermore, since a primary role of Ukrainian army artillery is counter-battery work, the premium is on high-mobility guns such as the truck-mounted Caesar, the PzH 2000 or the Polish Krab. Also essential is a network capability, which allows the gunners to take targeting information on the move, reducing set-up time when dealing with what are often fleeting targets.

In neither of these respects does the Light Gun fill a capability gap, and nor does it resolve any of the ammunition issues related to the shortage of Russian munitions. The British version of the gun uses non-standard ammunition which is not interchangeable with Nato-standard rounds. The guns will need a logistics train all of their own, dependent entirely on the UK for re-supply.

As is evident from this evaluation, though, the devil is in the detail – something which our media simply doesn’t do, hence their willingness to churn out meaningless puffs for the MoD, allowing Johnson to bask in the glory of helping the Ukrainians when, in fact, he is short-changing them.

In a cynical piece of legerdemain, Johnson gets to benefit in two ways – he parades his credentials as a “champion” of Ukraine, while the cost of his useless gifts is added to the defence budget, supporting his claim that he is increasing defence spending.

This sort of “smoke and mirrors” accounting is doubtless inflating the US tally as well, with Biden claiming that he has allocated $6.1 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 24 February. All the Department of Defence has to do is allocate the top value to the equipment donated and the dollars soon add up.

Speaking of “smoke and mirrors”, yesterday we saw on Twitter a truncated excerpt from Biden’s press conference at the end of the Nato summit, which purported to say that the US has gathered a coalition of 50-plus countries to donate new weapons to Ukraine.

Ukraine, therefore, was to receive 600 tanks, 500 artillery systems, 600,000 shells and 140,000 anti-tank weapons – except that this was not what Biden meant. From all accounts, he was eliding past receipts and promises, with vague future pledges, none of which he actually specified. And while the press conference was packed, none of these details can be found in the legacy media.

What is getting the coverage – picked up by Reuters – is a pledge from Biden that the United States will provide another $800 million in weapons and military aid to Ukraine.

Biden, who according to Reuters appeared to be readying allies for a long conflict in Ukraine despite talk in March of a possible victory, added: “We are going to support Ukraine for as long as it takes”. Confidently, he also asserted: “I don’t know how it’s going to end, but it will not end with Russia defeating Ukraine”.

There are signs, though, that the US is moving on ad hoc support to providing a more structured support package. These come via CNN which tells us that the Pentagon is reviewing proposals for new weapons capabilities to aid Ukraine’s fight against Russia.

The US Department of Defense is now reviewing 1,300 proposals from 800 companies for innovative new weapons and commercial capabilities they may be able to develop and produce for Ukraine

The proposals requested by the Department are said to centre around weapons capabilities for air defence, anti-armour, anti-personnel, coastal defence, anti-tank, unmanned aerial systems, counter battery and secure communications. All these have been identified by Ukraine as key military needs.

The goal, we are told, is to get ideas and information in hand in order to accelerate production and build more capacity across the industrial base. This reflects an acceptance that the US and its allies will most likely have to support Ukraine long after its own existing weapons stockpiles run out.

In particular, the Department is exploring options which would accelerate production and build more capacity across the industrial base for weapons and equipment that can be rapidly exported, deployed with minimal training, and that are proven to be effective on the battlefield.

What is particularly encouraging here is that the Pentagon has put into place a detailed bureaucratic structure to assess Ukraine’s needs and to try to accelerate supplying them. It has formed a new “senior integration group” comprising senior officials to review Ukraine’s latest operational needs.

This seems to be more real than some of the other things being floated, specifically Stoltenberg’s much expanded rapid reaction force. Also from CNN, we learn that Nato military officials are walking back the secretary general’s announcement earlier this week that 300,000 troops “will” be placed on high alert across the alliance.

The officials are now saying the high number is a “concept” the bloc aims to enact by mid-2023. The number is more “aspirational” and is based on a new model Nato believes will take at least another year to accomplish.

Real enough, though, is the Russian decision to abandon Snake Island, quitting it while under bombardment from Ukrainian forces, using a locally manufactured Bohdana howitzer – the only one of its kind. Not dissimilar to the Caesar, the gun was manufactured by the Kramatorsk Heavy Duty Machine Tool Building Plant and, so far, is a one-off.

The removal of Russian forces from the island may mean that the port of Odesa is less at risk and maybe signals the limit of Russian ambitions – possibly that they will not seek to move beyond Kherson Oblast and take the rest of the Black Sea littoral.

Another piece of interesting news is a denial from the Ukrainian military that they are planning to evacuate Lysychansk. At this time, we are told, there is no retreat planned. The battle continues and the enemy is having no success.

If that is the reality, then the situation is not quite as gloomy as I painted yesterday and, grandstanding aside, we might actually be seeing some real progress in the fightback against the Russians.