Contrary to Vladimir Putin’s assurances that “Ukraine is not our business,” Russia has suffered 15,000-20,000 dead and wounded on the Ukrainian field of battle, in addition to declining living standards, economic isolation and the expensive subsidization of occupied Ukrainian territories. As the Kremlin continues to send troops and weapons into Ukraine for its Novorossiya ventures, Putin should receive a frosty reception at the G20 meetings in Australia. But the costs of lost lives and treasure may deter him more than threats of increased sanctions and other punitive measure by a united front of Western leaders.
NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)confirm that Russian troops, tanks, missile launchers and armored personnel carriers have been flooding into Ukraine for weeks, prompting harshcondemnation by U.N Ambassador Samantha Power that “Russia has negotiated a peace plan, and then systematically undermined it at every step.” In their alarming report entitled “Military Buildup Threatening Ukraine” to be delivered to Congress, Phillip Karber of the Potomac Foundation in cooperation with General Wesley Clark (retired) identify the following military assets inside Ukraine including the training of a Novorossiya air force within Russia:
RUSSIAN FORCES INSIDE UKRAINE
7,000+ Troops (Russian Spestnaz, Airborne and Combined-arms Troops)
100+ Tanks (including at least 40 T-90 tanks)
400+ Infantry Armored Vehicles (including BTR-90 and BMP-3)
150+ Self-propelled Artillery & Multiple Rocket Launchers
2S3 “Akatsiya” 152mm SP howitzer, 2A36 152mm long-range gun and 2S4 “Tyulpan” 240mm SP heavy mortar, SS-21 “Tochka” Surface-to-Surface Ballistic
SEPARATIST FORCES
20,000 – 25,000 Troops
350-400 Tanks (Russian supplied T-72 and T-64)
200-300 Infantry Armored Vehicles
400-500 Artillery & Multiple Rocket Launchers
This troop buildup, according to Karber and Clark, provides Russia with the “operational option” of opening a “Russian controlled land route to Crimea before the Sea of Azov freezes over in December.” Ukraine’s defenses would be split if units deploy from Crimea, but that would mean an open Russian invasion. In that case, Ukraine’s only option is to defend the long Dnepr River line and abandon the Donbas.” The Karber-Clark message is: Putin is preparing a clear shot at the Novorossiya land bridge, from which he could take the Kharkiv, Odessa and Kherson provinces, leaving behind a rump Ukrainian state.
This makes for grim reading both for participants in the G20 meetings in Brisbane and for Ukraine as it waits for the new Republican Senate to push vital military aid through Congress and sweats a potential presidential veto or a reluctant Obama foot dragging on delivery. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
We pay attention to the things we control like sanctions and other penalties, ignoring the fact that it is two domestic factors—casualties and money—that could give Putin pause. After all, many would argue that Putin began his attacks on Ukraine to divert attention from the weak economy. Let’s consider casualties first.
Russian casualties are too large to hide
Russian casualties in the April-to-present Donbass conflict provide a baseline figure for an expanded Novorossisk venture. Mounting Russian casualties in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces belie Putin’s claim that “Ukraine is not our business.” No—it is a very personal business when your own people are being killed and wounded.
Although Russia’s defense ministry has declared information on casualties off limits, not all mothers, fathers and wives of fallen soldiers can be kept quiet by threats to body and benefits. Courageous activist groups continue to compile casualty lists from social media, visit morgues, and monitor clandestine burials. The most visible of these are the Union of Societies of Mothers of Soldiers and Transport 200 (or Gruz 200, the military code name for zinc-lined military coffins). An occasional Russian regional newspaper or a local deputy (assaulted for his bravery) provide isolated glimpses into what one Russian soldier called the horrible truth of what is going on.
By early September of this year, the Kremlin had to admit the obvious—that Russian men and boys were dying in Ukraine, but, so the explanation read, they were either “lost” or “volunteers,” spending their vacations on the battlefields of Ukraine. According to civil rights activist, Elena Vasileva, Russia’s defense ministry has admitted to 900 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. Transport 200 concludes that 4,360 Russian soldiers have been killed in Ukraine in known battles. Journalist accounts of morgues, fields full of body parts, portable crematoria and sightings of white Gruz 200 refrigerator trucks remove all doubt about the wholesale loss of life on both sides. While none of the images have been carried by the Kremlin media, they can be viewed by Russians on the internet.
A military specialist, who wishes to remain anonymous, has pored over the data and concludes that 3,000 to 4,000 battle field deaths mean a minimum-case of 12,000 to 16,000 Russian wounded, not counting those fighting alongside rebels as “volunteers.” Although the Kremlin might hope to hide bodies, they cannot keep this number of wounded from the public eye back home.If Russia has suffered between fifteen and twenty thousand killed and wounded in the rather limited engagements in southeast Ukraine, what would be the human cost of a Crimean land bridge operation? Retired Ukrainian general, Dmitry Tymchuk, among the more reliable military analysts, writes that Ukrainian forces have taken up defensive positions, unlike their aborted offensive Anti-Terrorist Operation to dislodge separatist from the Donbass. In a defensive mode, Ukraine only needs to have one soldier for every four attacking forces. Russia has only until the Sea of Azov freezes over in December. A more likely spring offensive would give Ukraine additional time to prepare its defenses—and hopefully receive military aid from the U.S. and other countries.
Analyst Paul Goble, in his review of estimates of Russian casualties in a land-bridge war (some of which are as high as 40,000 Russians killed or wounded in the first weeks), concludes that “the Kremlin has to be thinking about the losses Russia would suffer—and even more about how Russians might react if they had to pay such a price for Putin’s policies.” A survey by the authoritative Levada Center finds that almost 70 percent of Russians do not want their sons to fight in Ukraine.
Economic costs mount
Putin’s unabashed disregard for the Minsk Peace Accord, which he himself brokered, guarantees that there will be no softening of international sanctions for the foreseeable future. If anything, the G20 leaders will probably discuss heightened sanctions in Brisbane, such as sector-wide sanctions and the wholesale freezing of assets of Putin’s inner circle, perhaps including Putin’s own $40 plus billion. (U.S. attorneys have launched an investigation ofGennady Timchenko, Putin’s reputed business partner.)
Russians understand that Putin’s Ukraine adventure has made them pariahs, lowered their living standards, and caused their ruble savings to collapse along with the ruble (just as they did under Boris Yeltsin). The euphoria from reclaiming Crimea does not compensate for the $7 billion confiscated from the national pension fund to pay Crimean annexation costs. With a tight federal budget, pensioners understand that any cost of living increases cannot keep up with the near double digit inflation.
Although Russian propagandists refer to the Donbass as Ukraine’s industrial heartland, it is really Ukraine’s dying rustbelt, propped up by Kiev’s $3 billion in subsidies for the coal industry, electricity and natural gas, and its budget deficit. Deutsche Welle rightly describes the Donbass as a “heavily subsidized millstone for Ukraine, not an industrial powerhouse.” After the rogue November 2 separatist elections, President Petro Poroshenko declared that Ukraine will only provide financial assistance to territories that “have raised the Ukrainian flag.” As a Kyiv Post editorial bluntly declares: “Cut them off.”
In an earlier article (prepared in collaboration with a respected Ukrainian economist), we calculated that the full annexation of the Donbass “would eat up between 6 and 8 percent of the Russian budget each year—as compared with 12 percent for the military. This is $60 to $80 billion less for investment, military expenditures, modernization, and other state activities.” In other words, to quote from former deputy prime minister, Boris Nemtsov: “[Russia has] no money to maintain 4 million people. What is left for Zarkharchnko and company (the newly-elected “premier” of Donetsk)? To fight. The mines are closed, there is no work. Just to fight. Thus ends without glory the bloody adventure of Putin against his neighbors.”
The one third of Donbass residents of retirement age desperately want their pensions paid in full and on time, just as Donbass miners and steel workers want employment and wages. Premier Zarkharchenko admits that retirees must wait three to four months before being paid, although there may be some partial payments if Russia supplies humanitarian aid. His excuse: “Right now there is no economy and hence no money.”
Although the “premier” of the so-called Peoples Republic of Donetsk hopes that Russia will pay for the reconstruction of the Donbass, we learn from Russia Today (RT) that the self-proclaimed Peoples republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are negotiating “at the highest levels” with Russia about the price of natural gas to be delivered through a separate pipeline. With the Donbass accountingfor 16 percent of GDP and more of Ukraine energy consumption, Ukraine now can forego $3 billion in subsidies and 20 percent less in natural gas consumption. Apparently, Russia expects the flat-on-its-back Donbass to pay its own bills. No wonder Ukraine is insisting on paying Russia only for gas it orders.
Both Russia and Donbass don’t have the money to pay Donbass’s bills, but they expect its young men to fight against the “Kiev fascists” and the miners to keep quiet. Russia’s most likely plan is to provide a minimal level of financial support to prevent an outright popular revolt against their self-proclaimed leaders.We have no way to figure out the economic cost of new territories occupied in the land bridge to Crimea under the administration of new self-proclaimed leaders of new Peoples republics. But it seems safe to assume that Russia expects the affected populations to accept their new rulers, live in deteriorating economic conditions, and provide the cannon fodder for Russian-directed separatists. There is no other choice: Russia does not have the money.
Putin’s dashed hopes for Novorossiya
In a telling interview, ex-Donetsk Peoples Republic “defense minister,” Igor Strelkov (real name Girkin) revealed that Russian forces did not “expect a long war…We expected that the same would be in Novorossiya (as in Crimea)….Novorossiya would be the first step for the liberation of Kiev and the consolidation of Russia and Ukraine and one Slavic state.” Strelkov and the Russian-directed separatists anticipated cheering crowds as they advanced in glory from Donbass to Kharkiv and Odessa and then on to Kiev.
The Russian dreams of April 2014 have not survived reality.
Despite a massive influx of Russian mercenaries, tanks, artillery, and regular troops, Russian-directed separatists hold only parts of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, which, after the sham elections of November 2, they must keep above water. Ukrainian forces hold Donetsk airport, while the citizens of Mariupol, Odessa and Kharkiv prepare their defenses for a Russian assault on their cities. Ukrainian public opinion has become increasingly anti-Russian and pro-Western as Russia’s War on Ukraine has unfolded.
Russian-directed separatists can count on shells and bullets, not cheering crowds, as they try to consolidate Novorossiya. Putin miscalculated but he follows the motto of never retreat—no matter the cost. Only the Russian people can stop him by withdrawing their support because a Putin with the favorability rating of Barack Obama would be a different Putin.
THE AUTHOR is a member of the International Advisory Board of the Kiev School of Economics. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of the school. Click here for information on his documentary film Women of the Gulag.
No comments:
Post a Comment