Deliberate ratcheting up On July 20th Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Army General Mark A. Milley held a press conference providing a Ukraine battlefield update, and informing about the military assistance being rushed to Ukraine. In the update Lloyd Austin mentioned that “Ukrainian forces are now using long-range rocket systems to great effect, including HIMARS provided by the United States, and other systems from our allies and partners. Ukraine's defenders are pushing hard to halt Russia's advances in the Donbas.” With Russians relentless shelling Ukraine, Austin argued that “Ukraine needs the firepower and the ammunition to withstand its barrage and to strike back at the Russia -- Russian weapons launching these attacks from inside Ukraine's own territory … And so we understand the urgency and we're pushing hard to maintain and intensify the momentum of donations.” He mentioned that the deliveries of the advanced NASAMS air defence systems in cooperation with Norway, and the commitment of four more HIMARS in addition to the 12 systems that had already been provided. Milley mentioned that in its current phase the war continues to be a battle of attrition, executed through sustainment and really long-range fires. The limited gains of the Russians come at an incredible cost in terms of Russian casualties and equipment. Austin and Milley only talked about the ongoing deliveries of military assistance, but neither touched upon the serious issue of what to expect in the future. Further drip drip escalation? A continued battle of attrition? Russian answers to the use of long ranging HIMARS and MLRS? Continued escalation until what…?” It is almost as if they just expect the West, led by the U.S. to have an implicit strategy of reacting to Russian advances with a deliberate drip drip escalation. Just enabling Ukraine to keep up the fight without being strong enough to somehow overwhelm the Russians. Continuing a proxy war of attrition, albeit with a constant but deliberate escalation of the military aid to Ukraine, calculated not to provoke the Russians to retaliate in way that would result in out-of-control escalation. This must also have struck the journalists present at the press conference, with one journalist asking “Can you give us a picture of how much, if any, gains Ukraine may be making or not making? Is the Donbas lost at this point to Russia? Milley’s response: “…to answer your question about is the Donbas lost, no, it's not lost yet. The Ukrainians are making the Russians pay for every inch of territory that they gain.” Essentially, he just said that a war of attrition would continue. No wonder another journalist asked “Do you see that continuing just forever or do you still have fundamental concerns that Russia could stage some kind of break-out or a sudden escalation and just throw everything at Ukraine even back towards Kyiv at some point, back towards the rest of the country?” Austin only had a vague answer arguing “there's a lot more to be done. The HIMARS alone will not change or win or lose a fight, but it's the integration of a number of capabilities that we have provided and are looking at providing down the road. But most importantly, our allies are providing as well. So, we're looking at a lot of things, everything.” Milley in his answer at least touched upon the risk of a dangerous escalation in the war: “…in terms of what you asked about could it go in directions of, I think, escalation. Those kinds of terms that you were referring to, we look at it as most likely most dangerous courses of action that an opponent may -- an enemy may take … think of those. In terms of the most dangerous, of course, there's -- you can -- it doesn't take me at a podium to talk about what they might be, you can figure that out on your own.” Apparently eyeing the possibility of a dangerous escalation that he really did not want to talk about. Instead, he seemed to prefer to return to the vague idea that the war of attrition might somehow lead of some kind of solution. “In terms of most likely, though, at this point -- and -- and this is always subject to -- to debate -- but at this point, we have a very serious ground -- grind -- grinding war of attrition going on in the Donbas, and -- and unless there's a breakthrough on either side, which right now the analysts don't think is particularly likely in the near term, but unless there's a breakthrough, it'll probably continue as a grinding war of attrition for a period of time until both sides see an alternative way out of this, perhaps through negotiation or something like that.” (Emphasis added). Austin and Miley are evidently aware of the dangers of escalation, but do not want to talk about the inherent dangers of further escalation, as we can infer from Milley’s hesitant and stumbling answer. The press conference shows that there are no explicit ideas for how to end the war, except for an extremely vague hope of negotiation or something like that in the future. To avoid the unmentionable dangers Milley alluded to, the overall strategy just seems to consist of a deliberate escalation to keep the Russians at bay, by letting them pay dearly for every attempt to advance. Almost like the war in Vietnam, but in this case relying fully on the Ukrainian proxies to bear the brunt of the war. The U.S. just giving them sufficient support to stand up to the Russian forces. A war of attrition indeed! The dangers of escalatory reaction? While two generals aim to give the impression of deliberate escalation, prodding the Russian bear with bigger and bigger sticks, without actually provoking Russia to retaliate with a drastic escalation, that would involve NATO forces or even some form of non-strategic nuclear demonstration in Ukraine designed to force the U.S. to de-escalate. The generals seem to prefer to react to Russian advances by giving the Ukrainians just enough military support to keep a war of attrition going. That is certainly not enough for President Zelensky, who argues: “The ultimate goal of Ukraine is to restore territorial integrity, including Crimea.” (WSJ). This of cause means further escalation, more heavy weapons and more direct involvement of the West in order to achieve Zelensky’s goal, and the passionate intensity of some politicians in the West is encouraging Zelensky to demand more all the time, and scolding those who show less passion. Just listen to NATO’s Declaration of support for Ukraine: “We stand in full solidarity with the government and the people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their country. We reiterate our unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders extending to its territorial waters. We fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence and to choose its own security arrangements. “ Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity must mean defeating the Russian assault. How will the Russia react if it was eyeing such a defeat. Somehow accept the defeat or react with drastic attempt to escalate meant to force the West to de-escalate if they do not want all-out war…? If a conventional conflict might threaten Russia, it might decide to use nuclear weapons to create such a catastrophic threat to a continuation of the conflict that its adversary would be forced to de-escalate. A Congressional report in fact mentions that this might happen if Russia looks to be defeated in a conventional conflict with NATO. Now what does this mean in relation to Ukraine? Could an eminent defeat of all Russians troops in Ukraine, the re-conquering the Russian held areas, and the weakening of Russia military might to a stage, where it would unable to wage war be seen as a defeat threatening Russia itself? Would an eminent risk of this happening provoke Russia to nuclear escalation in order to force the West to de-escalate? Russian certainly has the enough tactical nuclear weapons to make that a possibility. See also these previous blog entries: A cocksure West risking catastrophe Russia might pursue an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine, when facing defeat, the possibility of losing everything in Ukraine, and ability to wage war. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/a-cocksure-west-risking-catastrophe #berlingske #borsen #jyllandsposten #dkpol WHY is passion drowning out realism in Ukraine war? This essay contrasts two views of the proxy war in Ukraine. https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/why-is-passion-drowning-out-realism-in-ukraine-war? A Ukrainian weapons wish list The U.S. generals may follow a strategy of deliberate ratcheting up weapon deliveries when absolutely necessary to counter Russian advances, keeping the proxy war simmering so to speak, until an alternative way out of this war is found through negotiation or something like that. Ukrainians want much more than that. In order to be able to force back the Russians, they want an enormous escalation of weapon deliveries that would out-escalate Russian non-nuclear capabilities. Just before the meeting of NATO i the middle of June, Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to President Zelensky, published an outrageous Ukrainian wish list for heavy weapons on twitter: Weapons delivered or promised A comparison of the wish list with what has been delivered or promised show that Ukraine in July has actually got quite a lot of the heavy weapons, armoured vehicles, and drones they wished for. Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRLS) delivered or promised At least 60+ of 300 on the wish list, although only 20+ are modern MLRS from the West, the rest being older Russian material with less capabilities: Western types: 16 227mm HIMARS from U.S. [Delivered from June 2022 onwards] 3 227mm M270B1 MLRS from UK [July 2022] Plus 3 refurbished M270MLRS from Norway? 3 227mm M270 ''MARS'' MLRS from Germany [To be delivered in late 2022] Russian types: 20+ 122mm RM-70 [April 2022] 122mm BM-21 Grad [May or June 2022] (Purchased by Czechia from Bulgaria and delivered to Ukraine) 122mm RM-70 Vampir [July 2022] 20+ 122mm BM-21 Grad from Poland [April 2022] 155 mm Howitzers towed and self-propelled delivered or promised At the very least more than 250+ promised or delivered. In addition, Ukraine has got or been promised a substantial number of 122mm and 105mm howitzers. Towed Artillery 126 155mm M777 [Delivered from April 2022 onwards] from the U.S. (Towed by 126 FMTV armoured trucks. Including 1000 M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells) 6 155mm M777 from Australia [April 2022] 4 155mm M777 from Canada [April 2022] (Including an undisclosed amount of M982 Excalibur GPS-guided shells) 155mm FH-70 from Estonia [May 2022] 155mm FH-70 from Italy [May 2022] Self-Propelled Artillery 18 155mm Caesar from France [Delivered from May 2022 onwards] 22 155mm M109A3GN from Norway [May 2022] 8 155mm PzH 2000 from the Netherlands [April 2022. Training completed in May 2022. Arrived to Ukraine from June 2022 onwards]. In coordination with German deliberies ? 10 155mm PzH 2000 from Germany [April 2022. Training completed in May 2022. Arrived to Ukraine from June 2022 onwards] 72 155mm AHS Krab from Poland (18 donated, 54 purchased) [June 2022] (Delivered along with LPG command vehicles) 8 155mm ShKH Zuzana 2 from Slovakia (Purchased) [To be delivered] 20 155 mm M109 US made, acquired from Belgium and refurbished from the UK [to be delivered]. Tanks delivered or promised At the very least 270+ tanks mostly of the old Russian T-72 type, with an unknown number of newer Polish PT-91 tanks, a development of the T-72. Russian materiel 40~ T-72M1 [April 2022] T-72M1 [May or June 2022] (Purchased by Czechia from Bulgaria and delivered to Ukraine) 230+ T-72M(R) and T-72M1(R) from Poland [Delivered from April 2022 onwards] Polish material PT-91 from Poland [July 2022]. A Polish development of the T-72M1 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs). A compilation made by ORYX (Oryxspioenkop, a Dutch defence analysis website) shows that Ukraine must have got or been promised around 400 APC’s of various types. Not known if this includes the 120 APCs from the UK. Drones or Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicles (UCAVs) Apart from a number of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, Ukraine has got or been promised at the very least 1000 + USA Switchblades (type 300 and 600) and a large number U.S. made Phoenix Ghost drones. More detailed lists of equipment delivered and promised have been compiled and published by some countries and by ORYX and Wikipedia. U.S. Department of Defence published “Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine” on July 8. The UK Forces.net have published a list of UK military equipment support for Ukraine (delivered and promised) on July 21. The German “Bundesregierung” has published a list showing the military equipment support for Ukraine (“Militärische Unterstützungsleistungen für die Ukraine”) on July 27. A further very comprehensive “List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine” may be found in Wikipedia Our compilation and the various lists only show what is known at the moment. While it shows that Ukraine has got quite a lot of heavy weapons, there is still some way to go if the West were to fulfil the Ukrainian wish list and all the other demands that they have. What’s next? It would seem that there is a steady drip drip drip of HIMARS rocket launchers and precision ammunition from the U.S. Originally Ukraine got 4 HIMARS, later it got 8 more and on July 20 the Secretary of Defense announced that the U.S. would deliver 4 more, thus Ukraine would have 16 HIMARS as noted in our listing. More to come? Especially given the apparent success the Ukrainians have had. HIMARS precision guided missiles “have helped diminish the Russian Army's firepower by blowing up munition depots, command centres, and other key targets. Ukrainian soldiers in eastern Ukraine say this has made a palpable difference on the battlefield” (Radio Free Europe). Recently HIMARS missiles have apparently been used to seriously damage the Antonivsky bridge in Kherson, hampering Russian logistics. And the U.S. Department of Defense has just announced additional ammunition for the HIMARS. Ukraine also needs ammunition for all the 155 mm howitzers they have got, and on August 1 the U.S. Department of Defense announced the delivery of 75.000 extra rounds of 155 mm ammunition., while the UK defence minister promised 50.000 rounds. Tanks and especially modern Western tanks have been a constant Ukrainian demand, while Western countries until now have tried to avoid giving in to the demand. Worried how the Russians would react. Instead, Ukraine have been provided with Russian type tanks, mostly T-72s. Sometimes involving what the Germans have called “Ringtausch.” Meaning that for instance Poland would deliver T-72s from its own stockpile and be provided with German Leopard tanks instead. Although there have been Polish complaints that the Germans are not living up to their promise by delivering tanks that have not been upgraded. Previously Spain had wanted to deliver 40 German made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but they did not get the necessary permission from Germany. With Germany fearing Russia could see this deliberate escalation of the conflict and accuse NATO of being a co-belligerent to Kyiv. Thus, Germany and the West in general are still reluctant to deliver modern tanks to Ukraine. Ukraine has called for much more Deliveries of heavier missiles to be used in the HIMARS and MRLS. For instance, the longer ranging and more destructive ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System). The MGM-140 ATACMS has a range of 165 km (block1) or 300km (block 1A) and a 500kg+ warhead. More self-propelled Howitzers, and in a surprise move late in July Germany has allowed Ukraine to buy 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000, the modern self-propelled howitzer from the German armament firms Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetal: “Die Bundesregierung hat offenbar den Verkauf von 100 Panzerhaubitzen an die Ukraine genehmigt und somit den Weg für einen 1,7 Milliarden Euro schweren Deal zwischen der Ukraine und den deutschen Rüstungsfirmen Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) und Rheinmetall freigemacht.” But they cannot be delivered before 2024. Air defence systems. Ukraine has now been promised delivery of two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS). Also known as Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, as they are developed by Kongsberg defence in Norway and Raytheon in the US. They represent very advanced Surface-to-Air missile systems, able to protect large cities thus upping the ante in the fight against Russian missiles and aerial bombardments. In an interview in late July the German Foreign Minister announced: "…we also are delivering the IRIS-T air defense system. Well, I hope that by the end of summer, or in early September… And it is in the final stage of production, it was to go to another country. So, we had to agree with this country, that they would give in, and the system would go to Ukraine, and I really hope that we would be able to do the same with more of these systems" (defense-ua.com). Iris-T SL is an advanced anti-aircraft missile system able to intercept all types of air targets, aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise and ballistic missiles, at a distance up to 40 km and a height of 20 km. Lately there also been talk of allowing Ukraine to buy more of these systems. Ukraine would like to have heavier strike drones like the MQ-1C Gray Eagle. An advanced strike drone with a range up to 400 km, and able to carry 4 × AGM-114 Hellfire or 8 × AIM-92 Stinger missiles or × GBU-44/B Viper Strike bombs. In June the Biden administration apparently had planned to deliver 4 MQ-1C Gray Eagles to Ukraine but this was blocked by congress. Present status unknown. Modern combat aircraft like U.S. F16s. A U.S. general talked of the possibility of using non-US fighter jets like the Swedish built JAS 39 Gripen or the French Rafale), and US Air Force Secretary, Frank Kendal, mentioned the possibility of giving Ukraine A-10 Thunderbolts (also called Warthogs) specially designed for close air support of ground forces. A pie in the sky list of demands you might say. Giving in to the Ukrainian wishes and demands would certainly represent a large escalatory move, which in turn might lead to an unknown but presumably drastic Russian retaliation. And suddenly the proxy war may reach the dangerous uncontrollable escalation the generals did not want to talk about. In an interview on July 20 Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the delivery of Western long-range weapons like HIMARS would pose a direct threat to the territory of the republics that-have declared their independence. Lavrov “… cannot allow the part of Ukraine that Zelensky will control or whoever replaces him to have weapons that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territory of those republics that have declared their independence, those who want their future decide for yourself.” (RIA Novosti). Russia would therefore have to move further into Ukraine to secure its own and the Donbas Republics borders. Western support for Ukraine quantified in monetary terms What is the cost of the material support in form of weapons and other equipment, of humanitarian and financial assistance? The Kiel Institute for the World Economy is running a database quantifying the military, humanitarian and financial support that Ukraine is receiving. Government support to Ukraine from major contributors in billions (in some countries called milliards) of Euros. Commitments made from January 24 to July 1 2022. (Data from The Kiel Institute for the World Economy.) This may seem a lot, but should perhaps be seen in relation to the other important cost related to war in Ukraine.
The costs of war Ukrainian Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, gave a recent estimate of the size of damages resulting from the war and the cost of recovery: “Direct infrastructural losses are worth over $100 billion, and full-fledged Ukraine recovery plan is estimated at $750 billion.” (Denys Shmyhal at Twitter). According to KSE (Kyiv School of Economics) compilation “the volume of direct losses to the Ukrainian economy from damage and destruction of residential and non-residential buildings and infrastructure (in monetary terms) increased to $108.3 billion” as of August 1, 2022. For instance KSE has calculated that at least 129,900 residential buildings have been destroyed or damaged up until now. Taking account total amount of reconstruction, recovery and modernization according to “Build Back Principles” KSE reach Denys Shmyhal’s estimate of $750 billion. The Ukrainian government intends to finance their costly recovery plan with international grants, loans, and donations. In other words, with money from the West, with Zelensky arguing): “This is Russia’s attack on everything that is of value to you and me,” he added. “Therefore, the reconstruction of Ukraine is not a local project, not a project of one nation, but a joint task of the entire democratic world.” (NYT) The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has suggested that the frozen Russian foreign exchange reserves should be used to fund at least part of the reconstruction effort in Ukraine. The frozen Russian reserves amounts to around 300 billion dollars. But Russia has already reacted to the freezing of a major part of its reserves by announcing: “… this is an unprecedented freeze, so we will be preparing lawsuits, and we are preparing to apply them, as this is unprecedented on a global scale. (Elvira Nabiullina, head of Russia’s central bank, as quoted in FT). One may also wonder how China with enormous foreign exchange reserves would react to such a move by the West. Then there are the costs borne by Russia as a result of Western sanctions, although in certain areas like energy Russia is actually earning more from exports than in previous years. This at least goes for exports to Germany in the first half-year of 2022: “Im gesamten ersten Halbjahr betrugen Russlands Erlöse aus dem Deutschland-Geschäft in Summe 22,6 Milliarden Euro. Mehr als im bisherigen Rekordjahr 2012. Und nicht weniger als 52 Prozent mehr als 2021.” (Die Welt). Meaning that West is actually financing a part of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Perhaps one might even argue that the West is financing part of the war for both the Russians and the Ukrainians. For the West there is the cost borne as a result of rising energy and food prices. With the attempts to combat the resulting inflation perhaps resulting in a recession, and political instability. On the other hand, the Western military support for Ukraine and the sudden rush by NATO countries to arm themselves against Russia has “precipitated the current explosive boom for U.S.-and-allied armaments firms and their investors. Those investors are being well served by their governments.” (Zuesse in Modern Diplomacy). The rush to buy armament will presumable mostly benefit the U.S. armament firms, as for instance Germany now looks to buy U.S. made Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft and Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters, not wanting to have to wait for the previous planned European developments. One may even wonder if the gains to U.S. armaments firms and their investors surpasses the outlay for government assistance to Ukraine. Perhaps it is worth remembering World War 2 military leader and later President, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s, farewell address in which he warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961). |
Author
Verner C. Petersen Archives
November 2024
|