What Do Recently Reported Ukrainian Successes Mean - Dr. Mackubin Owens

What Do Recently Reported Ukrainian Successes Mean - Dr. Mackubin Owens

 

Recent reports indicate that the long-touted Ukrainian counter-offensive, originally launched in the spring, is achieving some positive results. According to these reports, Ukrainian forces have created a breach in Russian defenses in Southeast Ukraine, forcing Russian troops to abandon their defenses in southeastern Kharkiv Oblast to escape encirclement around Izyum, a claim confirmed by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD). In one sector, Ukrainian forces are reported to have penetrated the Russian line to a depth of 40 miles.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Russian sources have denied this claim. According to Tass, "The Russian Defense Ministry…noted that the Ukrainian army had been making unsuccessful offensive attempts since June 4. Over the past two months, Kyiv has lost more than 43,000 troops and about 5,000 pieces of various military equipment, including 26 planes and 25 Leopard tanks."

There is no question that the Ukrainian advance has been costly. Nonetheless, this is an impressive feat, especially given the strength of the Russian defense in depth, which features mutually supporting fortified trench lines, mines, and other obstacles, covered by artillery fire and drone strikes. But even if the breakthrough is as successful as the Ukrainians claim, it represents only the beginning of a long slog. To understand why, it is helpful to look at the Western Front during World War I.

After an early period of maneuver in 1914, the European front stabilized on a line running from Switzerland to the North Sea. Each side attempted to achieve a decisive breakthrough. The pattern was to unleash massive artillery barrages against the defender, then launch a ground assault. Each side was able to achieve penetrations, some relatively deep, but neither side was able to exploit a breakthrough until the very end of the war. Indeed, the attacker was often left at a disadvantage: a penetration created a salient, which left the attacking force vulnerable to attacks against the flanks, the “shoulders” of the salient. A breakthrough such as the Ukrainians claim to have achieved is useless unless it can be exploited. Without such exploitation, the war will continue to be a war of attrition. And such a war continues to favor Russia, with its superior resources.

There are indications that Ukraine has come to terms with this reality and are betting that its counteroffensive will not result in victory, at least in the near term. The evidence comes from reports that Ukraine is attempting to raise a new army of 500,000 by 2025.  The problem is that despite the undoubted courage and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people as a whole, the European press claims that thousands of Ukrainian men are avoiding military service by escaping from Ukraine, exploiting loopholes in conscription laws, or bribing officials. 

Ukraine’s external response is to undertake a major campaign in Europe demanding that eligible males living outside of Ukraine be returned for military service. This has caused tension between Ukraine and Poland, where the largest number of Ukrainians outside Ukraine and Russia are living. Ukraine’s internal response is to begin cracking down on those attempting to avoid military service by changing recruitment requirements to include all males between 25 and 55 and those who were excluded for medical reasons.

Still, it is possible that Ukrainian efforts will result in success. War is seldom linear. And as Napoleon understood, the most important factors in achieving victory are often not quantifiable. As he observed, “in war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” In an earlier column, I wrote about the importance of resilience in war. An army can be resilient but resilience can collapse all at once. Consider an example from the American Civil War.

In the waning months of the conflict, Union Gen. Ulysses Grant was besieging Petersburg, Virginia. Operating south of the city, he was attempting to interdict the main Confederate railroad artery to the Carolinas by extending the Union lines to the west, which would also thin the Confederate defenses. Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee knew he had to do something and thought that if he was able to achieve some success near City Point, Grant would have to contract his lines. If the contraction took place, Lee would then be able to move south toward North Carolina if Petersburg fell.

Accordingly, Lee launched an attack at Fort Stedman on March 25, 1865. The attack initially achieved success, but Union counterattacks restored the line. Recognizing that Lee had weakened his defenses in order to concentrate his forces on Fort Stedman, Grant now believed the time was ripe for a final push, resulting in a number of local victories. The Confederate defenses began to collapse and on April 2, Grant ordered a general assault across the entire front. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox a month later.

Is such a sudden collapse possible for either side? Both Ukraine and Russia have displayed remarkable resilience. But cracks are visible.