In Other News: Putin's Fubar War

Could Ukraine be Afghanistan redux for Russia?

168 is a newsletter emailed on an unscheduled basis in which I share my thoughts on various topics for discussion. Please add your comments by clicking on the REPLY button at the end of this piece. To view archived newsletters, please visit www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com.

Slava Ukaini!

While we Americans were caught up in the hoopla of the Academy Awards-like Democratic National Convention or bearing witness to Donald Trump’s latest inane outbursts, it’s a good bet many of us paid little attention to recent developments in the war in Ukraine. On August 6, the Ukrainians launched a military operation across their northern border into Russia’s Kursk oblast, surprising not only the Russians but Ukraine’s supporters in the West. They have seized territory and forced the evacuatation of over 100,000 civilians. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been tight-lipped about the objectives of the operation while the Russians have been slow to respond and have made no moves to recapture lost territory.

In the David-vs-Goliath fighting that has raged for two-and-a-half years, the resourceful Ukrainians have managed to withstand brutal assaults by the Russians that have included drone, missile, and bomb attacks on civilian targets and on critical infrastructure. Though the Russians have gained territory this year along the World War 1-like front line in eastern Ukraine, these advances have come slowly and at a great cost in men and material. Over time, however, a war of attrition would seem to favor the Russians and the sentiment for a negotiated end to hostilities continues to manifest itself among the the nations providing military and financial to Ukraine.

Zelenski has been adamant that Ukraine will only accept a settlement that returns the two countries to their 1991 border, meaning Russia would have to not only relinquish control over the areas of eastern Ukraine they occupied in this current invasion, but also Crimea which they seized in 2014. The “Little Russians” (as Vladimir Putin disparagely calls the Ukrainians) have proved to be clever and audacious in resisting the supposedly mighty Russian military. The determined Ukrainian armed forces turned the war Putin claimed would take 3 days into 31 months of brutal death and destruction. Material aid from the Europeans and the US (modern tanks, advanced air defense systems, and long-range artillery and precision-guided rockets) reduced the Russian advantage in weaponry. The Ukrainians developed innovative approaches to modern warfare¹ by employing, for example, drones not only for surveillance, but for the delivery of ordinance. Although it is without a navy, Ukraine has humbled the Russian Black Sea Fleet by employing kamikaze drone boats (“Sea Babies’) to sink Russian warships and missiles to attack them in port. They proved adept at implementing Sun Tzu’s precept for a victorious strategy- mystifying, misleading, and surprising the enemy.

In opening the first offensive into the Russian homeland since Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Ukraine has reset the narrative of the war. With the conflict having settled into the meatgrinder of trench warfare, the likely outcome seemed to be a negotiated ceasefire that would leave Russia in possession of Crimea (seized in 2014) and the eastern oblasts they took in the first months. Zelensky has not revealed the ultimate objective of the operation. One theory is that Ukraine wants to hold Russian territory as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, a theory butressed both by their construction of defensive positions in Kurst and indications of a further offensive move southeast into the Belgorod oblast.

Given the operational secrecy the Ukrainians were able to effect, there is widespread speculation about the actual objectives of the incursion. It may be intended to force Russia to move troops from the eastern front, thereby relieving pressure on Ukrainian defenders in the Donbas region. To transfer a sufficient number of troops and material would be a logistical challenge for a military that has shown itslef to be shockingly inept at the logistical requirements of a modern army. It is also possible they wanted to push Russian artillery and air bases further from the border or move their own drones and missiles closer to Russian air bases and other targets.

The Ukrainians are constrained by the restrictions placed on the use of long-range missiles provided by the US, Great Britain, and Germany against targets in Russia itself. There are reports that the Russians have begun moving their aircraft to bases out of drone range. Undeterred, Zelensky announced that Ukraine has developed its own long-range ballistic missile that, along with longer range drones, can hit more distant targets. The NATO allies have no say how these weapons are used.

But the perhaps the main purpose of Ukraine’s surprise attack is an act of political psychology. To have foreign troops invade Russia without meeting serious resistance and for refugees to stream into Moscow is an embarrassment for Putin, a dictator who portrays himself as a strong man. To further belittle Putin, the Ukrainians launched a drone attack on Moscow, a move more symbolic than physically damaging. For a regime that has downplayed the costs of a war it calls a “special military operation” (as many as 600,000 casualties including 120,000 killed and between 4000 and 7000 tanks²), reality is beginning to threaten its stability. How long will the oligarchs continue to support Putin if he cannot deliver anything resembling a victory?

There is one more factor hovering over both sides in the conflict- the outcome of the US Presidential election. If Donald Trump is again elected, he will likely cut off aid to Ukraine if Zelensky does not agree to a ceasefire which leaves the Russians in possession of the areas they occupied. Ceding a large swarth of Ukraine to Putin would allow him to declare victory. Ukraine’s awareness of this possibility doubtless provided the motivation to launch the offensive now when several months of good weather remain.

It is in the complex nature of American society’s DNA that while we love winners, we root for the underdog. It follows that we should be whole-heartedly backing Ukraine, a nation trying to grow out of its Soviet past and into a modern democracy. On the other side is a kleptocracy, a ruling cadre so corrupt that it cannot field an effective military, yet is admired by authoritarian-minded Americans. Time will tell if the underdog’s gambit pays off.

If you want to dive deeper into this topic, I recommend the YouTube channel of William Spaniel, an associate professor of politcal science who studies war and game theory. I also find the interviews on the Times Radio YouTube channel a good source for discussions not usually found in American media.

If you would like to support my efforts here, consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month.

If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, consider contributing occasionally by leaving a tip. Click below:

If you would like to submit a piece for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.

And please remember to click the Like button.

1. The Ukrainians had a head start in weapons production. As Kateryna Bonar wrote last winter, "When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine inherited some 30 percent of its defense industry, with over a million employees. Ukrainian factories had played a key role in supply chains and in producing and maintaining Soviet weapons systems, including missiles, tanks, aircraft engines, and components for the space industry.” -

2. Depending on the source, exact numbers are difficult for independent sources to verify. The Ukrainians consistently greater Russian losses than the Russians themsleves.