OPED By Air Marshal RGK Kapoor (R)
The Russia-Ukraine war is about to complete three years. This protracted conflict has seen numerous nations supporting both sides, highlighting a clear divide in the international community. While European nations and the US have supported Ukraine, Russia has received support from China, Iran, and North Korea.
However, recent decisions and actions have significantly changed the landscape of the conflict. There are reports that North Korean troops are being deployed in the operation to regain control of Kursk.
On the other hand, President Biden approved US$275 million of military aid and the use of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) (range 190 miles/300 km) against targets inside Russia. Similarly, the UK has approved the use of Storm Shadow cruise missiles (range 155 miles/250 km) into Russian territory.
Ukraine launched its first attack using these weapons on November 23 and has continued using these missiles over the following days.
Reasons For This Decision By The US
Russia wants to take back Kursk, for which it has amassed a large number of troops, possibly including around 10,000 North Korean troops. Ukraine has spent a lot of effort in wresting control of Kursk. However, a strong counterattack by Russia could cause large casualties to the Ukrainians.
Donald Trump will take over as President of the USA in January 2025. He has unambiguously articulated that he will bring this war to an end before he assumes office. He has nominated General Keith Kellogg as his envoy to Ukraine. He has also indicated that he is not averse to Ukraine ceding control of the areas annexed by Russia in the east.
With winter setting in, the USA strategy could be to allow Ukraine to gain as much territory as possible in the available time.
Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. (Edited Image)
Ukraine has suffered huge losses in terms of military troops, and conscription has been introduced. Additional weapons and clearance to engage targets inside Russia will help offset troop losses.
Russia will have to direct a larger effort to defend against ATACMS and HIMARS, hitting targets inside Russia. This will provide opportunities for Ukraine to simultaneously target Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.
Kursk is Ukraine’s biggest bargaining chip in case of a ceasefire. Offensive weapons could allow Ukraine to hold on to Kursk and negotiate from an advantage.
The US accounts for almost 50% of foreign funding received by Ukraine. If not for this funding, Ukraine would have lost the war, which would have been a major embarrassment for Western nations supporting Ukraine.
Russian Response
Russia, in response, announced the broadening of its nuclear doctrine on November 19, which allows it to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
This change has clearly been influenced by the US government’s decision to allow ATACMS to be launched in Russia. This will perhaps allow Russia to adopt a more aggressive posture and use heavier caliber weapons against Ukraine.
Whatever the nuclear threat articulated by President Putin, it is highly unlikely that he will make an irrational decision since Russia is slowly gaining the upper hand in the conflict. He would clearly like to wait for President-elect Trump to assume office once again.
Russia, in response to the use of ATACMS, fired its experimental ballistic missile Oreshnik, based on ICBM RS-26 Rubezh with MIRV capability, at Dnipro, the headquarters of Ukrainian missile and space rocket company Pivdenmash, on November 21. The Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) is supposed to carry nuclear warheads.
However, the negligible damage or loss of life indicates that the reentry vehicles did not carry warheads. This indicates that the attack was to threaten and not cause wide-scale destruction. This means that Russia is not inclined to escalate the conflict.
File Image: Russia-Ukraine War.
Russians have changed their tactics and are now leading their ground offensives with infantry and mechanized forces after suffering major losses to their armored vehicles.
Russia carried out a massive 200-missile attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure on November 27 to cripple its power generation in the winter months. This will directly affect the Ukrainian population and military industry. This pattern is likely to continue in the coming months.
Likely Future
Both countries understand each other’s red lines. While any loss of territory would be unacceptable to Russia, the loss of substantial Ukrainian territory would be unacceptable to the US and European nations. Hence, any ceasefire could work out between these two positions.
There is a deadlock between the two militaries in east Ukraine. Ukrainian counter-offensives have not worked, and Russia is slowly making territorial gains.
Ukraine has suffered heavy losses, and Russia is slowly gaining ground. Ukraine can fight so long as it gets Western assistance; it is highly unlikely that Western countries will pledge their own troops to fight in Ukraine.
Also, there is a limit to weapons and high technology that can offset Ukrainian losses in the war. Therefore, Ukraine must consider how far ahead it can fight even after introducing conscription.
Russia still has a large number of reserve troops it can field due to its much larger population. It also has a sizeable domestic defense industry and adequate infrastructure to continue producing weapons and platforms.
The war has also provided Moscow with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the latest weapons and technologies. Ukraine, meanwhile, has suffered major damage to its infrastructure, industry, and economy.
The US aid could be substantially reduced once President Trump assumes office in January 2025. He has stated that he will end the war before assuming office, though that may be a little optimistic.
The chances of Russia losing the war are negligible, and Western countries, with their economic situation, cannot continue funding the war. They cannot endlessly denude their own weapon stockpiles, leaving them defenseless against potential contingencies.
Their economies are also not doing particularly well. Added to this mix is the divide among Western nations themselves for supporting this long-drawn, very expensive war.
While Russia is probably getting manpower augmentation from North Korea and other support from China and Iran, Ukraine is getting equipment and financial support from Western countries and no manpower support.
Howitzer guns in Russia-Ukraine war. (Image for representation)
Ukraine has made significant progress in producing drones, air-to-air missiles, and electronic warfare equipment. However, manpower is progressively depleting, and weapons, especially artillery shells, air-to-ground weapons, surface-to-surface missiles, and air defense systems, are in short supply. This could be its Achilles heel as the war goes on.
There are growing concerns in the USA on continued equipment and economic support to this war since the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel have seriously depleted US weapon and equipment stocks.
On November 29, President Zelensky said that NATO membership could end the hot phase of the war, and negotiations could then begin on the return of occupied territories. Does that mean Ukraine agreeing to give up occupied territory in return for NATO membership?
This could be a sticking point, and Russia may not be willing to accept it. Also, during their recent telephone talk, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged President Putin to resolve the issue diplomatically after a ceasefire and withdraw from the occupied territory. These statements indicate the growing weariness from the long war.
At this stage, an outright Ukraine or Russian victory seems highly improbable. The status quo is theoretically possible with continued Western support for Ukraine, but that support appears to be dwindling beyond a certain point.
If President-elect Trump’s plan succeeds, the conflict will likely freeze for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This should allow both parties to negotiate hard for territory since Kursk could be a major bargaining chip for Ukraine.
So, the most probable outcome without much embarrassment to Ukraine or Western nations would be that both Russia and Ukraine agree to a cease-fire with a fair exchange of territory between the two warring nations and Ukraine giving up its right to Crimea.
Ukraine could give up some parts already under Russian occupation in return for Russia vacating some portions in the east with a larger pro-Ukrainian population and full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Kursk.
While current positions articulated by both sides are closer to the two extreme ends of the spectrum, it is nevertheless encouraging that an increasing number of nations, including Russia and Ukraine, are acquiescent to some sort of negotiations.
NATO membership may be far-fetched, but some assurances for the future with limited loss of territory may be the plausible option for Ukraine. The final script, however, remains to be written. A fair assessment would be that the war would witness its last winter.
Air Marshal (R) RGK Kapoor, PVSM, AVSM, VM, is a retired officer of the Indian Air Force. He served as the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of Central Air Command.
VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
Mail EurAsian Times at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com