Russia’s slower than intended invasion of Ukraine has revealed many strategic and tactical miscalculations. This will hurt Putin politically and Russia economically.
On February 28, 2022,
Anonymous made a wide range of incisive comments:
"My own thoughts are as
follows.
Military
1. Preparing the supplies
and logistics for an invasion of a 200,000 man army is a big job. Compared to
the US in Gulf War let us assume it is 3 to 6 months. That means Putin started
planning the Ukraine invasion at the fall of Afghanistan or earlier.
2. Did Putin think
Ukraine would surrender quickly, like Kabul? If yes he has miscalculated. Much
of Putin’s messaging seemed designed to scare Ukraine into submission. But it
hasn’t worked, with no sign of Ukrainian units giving up.
3. Putin’s threats in
advance of invasion also gave a lot of warning to the Ukrainians. That gave
them time to prepare.
4. Even with 200,000 men,
Putin’s forces are spread thin by attacking from the North, East and South.
Ukraine is bigger than France and has 40 million population. In WWII the German
Army Group South invaded Ukraine with over one million men. There must be lots
of gaps for Ukrainian units to slip through.
5. If part of the Russian
plan was to cut off the Ukrainian government in Kyiv and replace it with a
puppet, that has failed.
6. I wonder if Putin
might have made more progress by concentrating his forces in the east and
expanding from the breakaway territories? A more pitched battle on a narrower
front could have taken; advantage of greater Russian fire support.
7. Getting drawn into
city fighting seems very much against Russian interests. Their mobility
advantage becomes worthless and it becomes easier for the Ukrainians to knock
out Russian tanks.
8. So overall it does not
seem to be going well for the Russians so far. Certainly there appears no quick
victory in sight.
9. Of course it is hard to see the Ukrainians expelling the Russians, who can simply send more men and equipment. So, a stalemate is looming in my view.
Economic and political
1. At first Nato and the
west was reluctant to support Ukraine, especially Germany. Then as the
Ukrainian defence started to look determined, respect for their cause has
grown, and western countries have felt obliged to support them.
2. The operation may
already have had adverse consequences for Russia, driving Finland and Sweden
closer to joining Nato. Not joining Nato didn’t do Ukraine much good, so the
conclusion for the Scandinavians is fairly obvious.
3. If it does become a
stalemate, economically Ukraine will be damaged. Politically Russia, especially
Putin, will be damaged. Despite threats, if Russia can’t take Ukraine, their
image of military toughness will look like a facade.
4. If Putin’s gambit does
not succeed, will other Russian republics try to break away while their army is
stretched thin? There are multiple areas that house separatists.
5. Internally, if Putin
fails, makes Russia look weak, and stops wealthy oligarchs getting their cash
from the west, his internal support might slip. Will the oligarchs’ scheme to
replace Putin as a way to break the stalemate.
6. Economically the sanctions will not do much in the short term. But cutting off the cash supply from the west to Russian banks will hurt. It will take years for Russia to build the infrastructure to send its gas east. In the mean time they will bleed a lot of cash.
Those is all only
speculation, and Ukraine might collapse tomorrow. But the longer it resists,
the higher the human, financial and political costs for Russia, and destruction
for Ukraine."
6 comments:
Hi Anonymous
Some excellent points.
Putins decision to buildup Russian forces over a period of months backfired in allowing more:
- Ukrainian military training
- internationally provided ammunition and other military aid to boost Ukrainian strength
- Ukrainian morale raising, getting in a more determined frame of mind, and
- intelligence gathering by Western agencies which for once was successfully pased on and acted on by Western countries (especially the US).
So no one was surprised.
I'll comment on your good economic and political points later.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous [who wrote https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/03/ukraine-incisive-military-economic.html ]
Your economic points and some of my comments since the invasion are well backrd up by an excellent essay by Fatima Hussein and other experts of March 2, 2022 at https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/russia-eyes-sanctions-workarounds-in-energy-gold-crypto-and-china/ who wrote in part:
"Russia Eyes Sanctions Workarounds in Energy, Gold, Crypto, and China"
The harsh sanctions imposed on Russia and the resulting crash of the ruble have the Kremlin scrambling to keep the country’s economy running. For Vladimir Putin, that means finding workarounds to the Western economic blockade even as his forces continue to invade Ukraine.
"...experts expect Russia to try to mitigate the impact of the financial penalties by relying on energy sales and leaning on the country’s reserves in gold and Chinese currency.
Putin also is expected to move funds through smaller banks and accounts of elite families not covered by the sanctions, deal in cryptocurrency and rely on Russia’s relationship with China.
"...sanctions...have largely allowed its oil and natural gas to continue to flow freely to the rest of the world.
...Russia is...also betting that their enormous energy supplies will continue to be in demand, particularly during this cold winter....
Last month, Russia and China signed a 30-year deal that will allow Russia to supply gas to China, though the pipes to carry that gas won’t be completed for at least three years. In addition, China announced last week that it would allow imports of wheat from all parts of Russia for the first time.
...the Chinese and others “will be driving incredibly hard bargains” now that Russia has fewer willing buyers, and China will want to avoid being subject to secondary sanctions or sanctions violations enforcement.
"...The penalties also do not impact Russia’s gold stockpile, which Putin has been accumulating for several years.
...An increased reliance on cryptocurrency will be an inevitable avenue for Russia to try to prop up its financial transactions...“but it’s unlikely it’ll serve as a substitute for corporate transactions over time.”
...about 80 percent of Russia’s financial transactions in the past have been done with the dollar
The official would not comment on whether the Biden administration is weighing targeting Russia-based crypto exchanges for sanctions.
...Redbord said that because of the breadth of the sanctions, the amount of crypto that Russia would need to replace the billions of sanctions “would be very difficult to off-ramp into traditional currency.”
...overall, “whether it’s using cryptocurrency or relying on China, there are mitigating actions they can take but they can’t recreate the financial system.”
...Beijing coming to the rescue of Moscow could be detrimental in the long term for China’s reputation in Europe and around the globe.
By Monday afternoon, the ruble had cratered and Russians stood in ATM lines for hours as inflation fears exploded..."
Thanks Pete for the comments. While Russia will no doubt do all those things as workarounds, they all have a transactional cost, both financially and politically. So now that the western countries have united on the Swift system ban; for Russian banks, I think the sanctions will start to have more effect.
The enforcement of financial laws on Russian billionaire oligarchs comfortably domiciled in the west is surely one of this war’s ironies. Who would have thought that Putin would inspire a crackdown on corrupt financial flows. It is not before time. Governments are finally realising how damaging these flows can be.
None of this is to say life will be easy for Ukrainians, and their military will need considerable assistance to be strengthened to the point where it might deter further Russian actions. But so far, Putin’s only real accomplishment has been to reunite a formerly divided west.
Dear Pete,
according to premature celebrations Putin must really have thought of a walk in the park:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
Australia could learn something from this war: not a few the big weapons did stop the Russian army. Many shoulder fired weapons did the job.
With an SSN Australia will never build submarines for themselves like South Korea does. I still think Australia needs many submarines and not a few big ones.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi Anonymous [at Mar 2, 2022, 10:21:00 PM]
Yes part-Capitalist China will drive hard trade and injection of finance bargains from a desperate Russia. Russia expected a quick, less expensive war.
The sheer cost of the war will have put major dents in Russia's foreign currency reserves.
Costs of destroyed Russian weapons, high price missiles expended, fuel and other consumables will add up.
Also Russian are no longer communist patriots, willing to put up with a low standard of living in favour of defence spending. Casualties and body bags will be difficult for Putin to justify.
Ordinary Russians are already stripping ATMs of hard cash, while the ruble and share prices drop.
Regards
Pete
Hi MHalblaub
Indeed, premature announcements of glorious pan-Russian reunification would have embarrassed the "Emperor of all the Russias" Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias
On the contrary - Australia's naval manpower, who are few in number and highly paid, point to a small number (ie. 8) high priced submarine. This is rather than many small-medium style submarines, that just happen to ply the Baltic, north of Germany...:)
South Korea has relied on TKMS designs since the 1990s and I suspect that the KSS III's are mainly heavily a TKMS design.
Germany's part pacifist military orientation has never wanted to be connected to:
- Israel's Dolphin SSC's (with nuclear cruise missiles) or the future Dolphin III SSBs
or
- to South Korea's KSS III SSCs/SSBs which I presume will have nuclear warheads in around 10 years.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment