AARON MEHTA
WASHINGTON: Watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine flag and falter, Norway’s top military officer was as surprised as the wider military world at just how badly the supposedly superior Russian military was performing.
“The status of the forces were worse than their higher officers believed. I think that’s a fact. The tanks were not as operational as they were supposed to be, they had problems with logistics, all those things,” Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, Norway’s chief of defense, told Breaking Defense in a May 12 interview.
But despite the surprising success of Ukraine’s defenders nearly three months into the doomed invasion, Kristoffersen joins experts and other officials in warning that the conflict is far from over — and predicting that, eventually, the Russian military will regroup, even if questions remain about exactly what that looks like. In the meantime, Kristoffersen said, the Kremlin is as dangerous as ever.
“I would just describe Russia now as a wounded bear, and it’s even cornered up,” Kristoffersen said. “I think it’s very dangerous, because what President [Vladimir] Putin has left is his nuclear deterrence, which is, you know, that’s very dangerous.”
Assuming Putin does not go nuclear — and Kristoffersen sounded relatively calm on that front, saying he doesn’t “see any will or motivation for Russians to use nuclear weapons right now, I think the threshold is still high” — then it appears the Ukraine situation may not have a near-term end in sight.
Kristoffersen predicts the situation in Ukraine will remain a “protracted war,” thanks to the strong Ukrainian defense. Those comments were echoed on May 16 by Finland’s ambassador to the United States, Mikko Hautala, who said the conflict will be a “long-term one,” which is “kind of a stalemate situation. And frankly, it’s hard to see what kind of political development” would break that hold.
The problem, Hautala said, is that “on the Russian side, politically I don’t see, at least yet, a political recognition of the fact that this war is unwinnable with the resources available right now. And I don’t know when that realization takes place. But I think my own sort of assessment is that Russia cannot give up on this conflict, at least yet. I think that’s why… it’s gonna demand a lot of time and unfortunately, a lot of capital before there’s a realization that something else has to be found because this war is unwinnable” for Moscow.
Right now, there is a sense in the public that Russia’s conventional forces have proven to be a paper bear, defeated by Ukrainians armed with older equipment, and plagued by a series of major logistical and morale challenges. But across the board, experts and European sources warn against complacency when it comes to Russia’s military.
“The greatest mistake is underestimating your adversary and thinking that they won’t recover and come back at you,” said Jim Townsend, a former DoD official and Europe expert with the Center for a New American Security. He points to how Russia lost early to German forces in World War II before returning with a vengeance.
“We have to be ready for the Russians to recover and come back as a military power, which history shows they will. It may take time, but they won’t forget. The Finns know that and that’s why they’re taking the risk to join NATO now.”
But turning a military as, apparently, hollowed out as the Russian forces were in Ukraine is going to be a challenge, said Steven Horrell, a senior fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis.
“Logistics and maintenance have clearly been problems — and that’s where the underlying corruption and kleptocracy show up as outcomes,” Horrell said. “That’s hard to repair during the fight. Other systemic problems include training, a total lack of a non-commissioned officer corps, company grade and field grade officers are far less empowered to make needed tactical decisions.
“Those aren’t quick fixes during the conflict,” he added. “It’s just a lot harder to adapt and learn during the fight when the failings are systemic and fundamental.”
Townsend said Russia should be able to make “some adjustments,” but noted that any major changes have yet to become evident on the battlefield.
“I think there is too much change — and deep change — that needs to be made before you see the results on the battlefield,” Townsend continued. “Their problems run from the morale and training of the conscript in the foxhole through his basic equipment, the logistics to give him beans and bullets all the way up the chain to the top guy. The integration of Intel, drones, air cover, etc it’s just too much to change very quickly.”
Kristoffersen: 5 To 10 Years For Russia To Rebuild
Complicating the situation is the question of how, or if, Russia can actively replace its material losses. Keeping munition stocks high enough is a challenge for every military, and Russia has expanded their supplies at such a significant rate that the US assesses they are running significantly low on weapons.
And with US-led sanctions in place, replacing key components might prove impossible for Russia’s already thinned out defense industry.
“We do assess that they are running through their precision-guided missiles at a pretty fast clip,” DoD spokesman John Kirby said May 10. “And we believe that the sanctions are part of this because it’s harder for Mr. Putin to get the kinds of components that make up precision-guided munitions and his defense industrial base is having trouble keeping up with that.”
Asked about Russia’s conventional capabilities, Kristoffersen said, “I’ve seen different estimates, but we’re talking five to 10 years, just to rebuild what we have lost so far.”
That’s a figure with which Horrell agrees, but warns that as a result, Russia may shift its tactics away from the direct line of combat.
“One thing that means is we should be more wary in the near- to medium-term about what Russia will do if it has a long road to rebuild those conventional capabilities,” he said, predicting there may be increased “hybrid type capabilities and activities” out of Moscow.
“With modernization resources scant, they may put more emphasis on the higher end capabilities that get our attention like hypersonics,” said Horrell. “Those, too, may have fundamental problems as we’ve seen with the conventional capabilities, but you have to commit resources to deal with those threats that may be low probability but high impact.”
Ultimately, when Russia looks at the Ukraine conflict, “They almost have to start over,” Townsend said. “And they will.”
No comments:
Post a Comment