Two Strategies for Ukraine: Attrition vs Breakthrough
Understanding the Pace of the Counteroffensive
Ukraine’s counteroffensive has moved at less than a breakneck pace: And one has to wonder why? Certainly, if Ukraine really fears a Trump presidency, you would think that they would be in a hurry. But yet Ukraine consistently rejects US advice to use their reserves to break through in the South.
I believe that Ukraine has switched its strategy: Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why Ukraine continues to fight along the entire front.
Ukraine appears to be waiting for F16s. I think they have doubts about their ability to break through without air support.
Ukraine is worried about losing experienced soldiers—having already faced more attrition than they openly admit.
Ukraine believes Putin cannot afford another round of mobilization without risking a dangerous political situation. Therefore, they are focused on low risk ways of inflicting positive casualty ratios. Then, when the planes and other weapons systems come, Ukraine can break through without losing as many men.
A long war might place more pressure on the Putin regime than a sudden collapse. In order to truly win, Putin must be removed from power—and to do this, Ukraine must destabilize the political situation in Russia. As such, Ukraine must inflict as many casualties on Russia as possible.
That said, I believe Ukraine’s thinking here is misguided:
1. Just a twenty-mile gain can place Russia’s supply lines in danger. Ukraine needs to gain at least that amount of territory to prevent Russia from further reinforcing its defenses over the winter.
2. Putin is going into an election: A defeat could have destabilizing effects on the regime despite Putin’s well-documented cheating.
Wars of attrition are often wars of will: And Putin’s lackluster mobilization may have signalled to Ukraine that he lacks the will to mobilize further. As such, while it might be counterintuitive, Ukraine might simply be trying to outlast Russia. The popular wisdom, that a war of attrition inherently favors Russia because they are the larger country, ignores the information contained in Putin’s limited, and deliberately underplayed, mobilization. A country can be much larger, but if its mobilization efforts signals a lack of political will, as the US draft lottery did during Vietnam, the smaller party can have a real shot at winning a war of attrition.
Or maybe they think their chances will be better next Spring. Whatever it is, there is a serious disagreement between Ukraine and the US about which strategy is best. The switch to attritional warfare, if that is indeed what is going on, is not as moronic as it seems, but I think Ukraine would be seriously mistaken if it doesn’t do everything it can to place Russia’s logistical supply chain under direct fire: It needs at least that twenty miles to put the M4 under HIMARS GMLRS range. Ukraine cannot afford to see Russia’s defenses strengthen yet further over the next wet season and subsequent winter.