On June 6th part of the Nova Kakhovka dam collapsed, sparking hundreds of analyses in news outlets and social networks. The dam is controlled by Russia, so they became the “usual suspects.” Russia, of course, claims the dam was damaged by recent Ukrainian artillery and missile attacks.
Whatever the truth may be, the good news is that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant’s remaining reactor (the others are shut down) will have ample cooling water. The bad news for Kyiv is that the resulting flood will surely hamper Ukraine’s long-awaited and faltering summer offensive. The worse news is that floodwaters will likely destroy 25% of Ukraine’s agriculture. Once a breadbasket exporting wheat to the world, Ukraine will now face famine or become a net importer of food.
Does all this foretell an early end to the war? Other analytics suggest that there is no end in sight, as does history.
After annexing Crimea in 2014, why did Russia invade Ukraine again? The reason is geography. Russia’s long western border is not defended with mountains or other natural defenses like deserts or swamps. As a result, Moscow has been consumed by fears of an invasion across their flat western plains since the time of the Tsars. Napoleon proved those concerns to be as true for his horses as did Hitler for his tanks. However, at the end of World War II, Stalin had the forces and economy that could mitigate those fears.
In 1955 the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Pact, a buffer zone along their western border that included Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. With Ukraine in mind, remember that in 1939 the Red Army invaded Finland for the same reason, namely Stalin’s concern there was not enough distance between Finland and Saint Petersburg, 20 miles away. After a series of Red Army defeats and Finnish losses in the Winter War, Stalin agreed to end the war if Finland ceded their islands in the Gulf of Finland, the Karelian Isthmus, Ladoga Karelia, Salla, the Rybachy Peninsula, and leased the Hanko Peninsula to the Soviet Union. The Finns were des[erate, and they agreed.
The creation of the Warsaw Pact reflected Stalin’s fears and needs to codify a defense in depth, fears, and needs that were amplified by the Marshall Plan in 1948 and the creation of NATO in 1949. Those two bulwarks were part of the American plan to contain the Soviet empire from further gains in Europe and spawned the Cold War. In Russian eyes, NATO only confirmed a need to defend their heartland from Western enemies, real or imagined.
When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1991, Russia lost that defense in depth. Today, Moscow is 300 miles from Russia’s western border – it has not been that close since the 18th century. President Putin was a KGB officer made in the Stalinist mold, so he and his generals still believe in the need for ‘defense in depth’ and they are determined to recreate it.
Because of its flat eastern geography, Ukraine was to be the first bite of the buffer zone apple. However, with so little progress to date, would a frustrated Kremlin be satisfied with half of the apple? On Saturday, 3 June, the Kremlin indicated they might consider that, but only if the West made major territory concessions. Say, from the Russian border westward to the Dnieper River? Would Ukraine adopt a Finnish solution in order to end the current bloodbath? Maybe, but even if Putin was satisfied with Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace, he still needs the territory of NATO countries in order to recreate a suitable buffer against the West.
These factors point to the probability of a long war in Ukraine, so how do Ukraine and Russia compare in their ability to win that war? First, examine the demographics of each country.
Russia
Ukraine
Look similar? Yes, until you examine the notch in the age groups of fighting-age adults. Russia has many more men in that category, especially considering the Russian population of 146,116,427 against 42,971,055 Ukrainians (less 3 million refugees and internally displaced persons). Simply put, there are 100 million more Russians than Ukrainians, so Russia now has, and will continue to have, many more men of fighting age.
Ignoring the propaganda from both sides, it is clear that while Ukraine suffered major losses of trained troops in the battle for Bakhmut, Russia lost convicts in the Wagner Group and now can call on their reserves of 300,000 regular troops. Whatever happens next, Russia will not run out of reserves of warfighters for the foreseeable future. Ukraine cannot be as confident.
An additional factor in Ukrainian demographics is that the Russians are kidnapping thousands of children. According to Ukraine’s National Information Bureau, 19,393 children have been taken and transported to distant towns in Russia. Lyudmyla Denisova, Ukraine's ombudsperson, said 402,000 people, including 84,000 children, have been taken against their will to Russia. The purpose of these crimes is to eliminate the youth that might grow into young adults who could reconstruct Ukraine or become soldiers. Stalin deported the Crimean Tartars for similar reasons. If the war drags on, we may be looking at Ukraine’s final generation.
In considering ground warfare materiel like tanks, remember Russia has a sixty-year reserve of WWII and younger armored vehicles. Of basic design, they are easier to refurbish than today’s tank, and in an arena like Donbas, numbers count, whether it’s people or tanks. Regarding combat aircraft, neither side has air superiority because both sides have good antiaircraft systems. Even the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force said giving Ukraine F-16 fighters would make no “fundamental change” in the war.
Then there are the economies of the two combatants. Although sanctioned, Russia continues to sell its oil, gas, gold, and other raw materials. In contrast, without massive U.S. and European support, Ukraine would now be totally underwater. With its massive reserves of weapons, Russia is financially and demographically capable of fighting indefinitely and Ukraine is not unless substantial foreign assistance continues.
Russia has experienced long wars of attrition and has survived, so unless Ukraine stops the slaughter in the manner of Finland, the war will continue until Ukraine runs out of troops and materiel.
But what if Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, as is being discussed here and in Europe? Would America then be forced into a war with Moscow because of Article 5 of the NATO treaty that says an attack on one is an attack on all? Or would we withdraw from NATO and leave Europe to the Europeans?
In view of our history from Vietnam to Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine an American Congress sending our soldiers into the Ukraine meat grinder, no matter how many Ukraine flags flutter in the hometowns of Senators and Congressmen.
I'm speculating...but here goes. I think this is an act of significant desperation by Ukraine. Why? It allows them to reduce the size of the 'line' that they need to defend against. Remember, Russia is on the offensive now, the mud has dried and they have built massive force to drive to the Dnieper River, with other forces poised to do more. Ukraine has reduced the avenues of advance, making it more feasible to protect the others. Forget the joke of a 'counter offensive'. The first serious part of that performative campaign in the South just failed, 4000 Ukrainians dead, hundreds of armored vehicles destroyed (personnel carriers and 56 tanks), no penetration of Russian lines. Russian losses were minor.
This is perfect for the Russians as they are happy to repeat Bakhmut until 'the last Ukrainian' as long as Zelensky wants. He lost 50k men at Bakhmut, Russians lost 10k. That's a formula for losing the war, and that's the wort the Russians have ever done against the Ukrainians. Again, we are being lied to about all this in the West. The Russians destroy the Ukrainian forces on the battlefield regularly in lopsided engagements. It's sick to continue the slaughter. They have lost more than 300k soldiers, and with another 500k seriously wounded enough to not be able to ever rejoin the fight. They have had at least 10 million citizens leave, the 40+ million number cited is too high. Ukraine is already far more decimated by this war than Americans understand. Cuz if they did, they'd realize further fighting is futile and we can't have that, can we?
I do have to really push back at the notion that 'defense in depth' is an outdated concept not really relevant to the Russians. No matter what one does with air power or soft power or cyber war, a conquering power will only win victory by eventually taking, clearing and holding territory with their forces. Watching this war has renewed my appreciation for how tough 'combined arms' warfare is in the 21st century. And it seems to me that defense in depth is crucial to provide the ability to degrade invading forces in the air and on the ground. Why would the U.S. have a two ring defense in say the Pacific if this wasn't a tried and true approach to defensive strategies?
But I defer to Mr. Faddis of course. I'm a mere amateur...I do read a lot, lol. I try to remain dispassionate about this war but I find many of my fellow Cold War raised and bred conservatives cannot help but 'port' their hatred of the USSR to Russia. So mistakenly in my view. In fact, my reading of the post Wall collapse, recent history of Russia is that the West missed a HUGE opportunity to draw Russia into the West which would have been perhaps the most strategic victory imaginable.
American ignorance plays in here, and arrogance, not recognizing just how crucial geography and history are. Just due to Russia's place as the largest nation on earth - by a mile. Russia comprises fully 1/8th of the world's landmass.Just due to its borders, it's in business and has important relationships with 14 countries, it will always be a player in multiple regions. It's defacto a major power, if not a 'great power' as the theory of 'Great Power Politics' defines it. We seem to not understand that the very idea that Ukraine could ever defeat Russia in a war is an insult to Russian identity and an absurdity. Russia will annihilate Ukrainian's forces and remove its govt from power now as it perceives correctly that Zelensky is a posing, dimwitted amateur being played for a rube by an incompetent Western elite who won't act reasonably, or better said 'realistically' (and by that I mean according to how a 'realism' based view of politics would expect a rational nation to behave).
As Ukraine is plunged into destruction and famine at scale, do you think this might give the likes of Vicky Nuland pause? We are the ideological lunatics in this war, not the Russians. Too many Americans do not see who we actually are on the world stage, they are stuck in a view of who we used to be (and never really were, fyi). But today we are so far from what Americans idealize our nation as being on the world stage. We are universally seen as insanely militaristic and interventionist with our intel and other powers when not actually taking part in the fighting in some way. We are seen as bullies and also push a radically leftist cultural and political agenda around the world, often allying with local leftists and other radicals against existing govts. We fly "Pride Flags" from embassies to piss off host nations and preach to them. Think about how much the Biden admin geeks piss us off when they speak, imagine the reaction to their arrogance when wielding U.S. power in the world?
The sad truth is that who owns/runs Ukraine was of no real interest to the actual interests of the American people. Sure, we made sure we put lots of stuff in there to 'change the facts on the ground' - labs, lots of NGOs, covert sites, signals gathering capabilities but in terms of anything other than what our aggressive nature had us place there? Nothing we needed from them would have stopped coming to us. We made Russia into an enemy, and now complain that they behave as one. How on earth could they not perceive us as so, expanding NATO by 14 nations right up to their border? And the increasing demonization of Putin and calls for his ouster by the West? Shocker, Americans - there is a consequence to dismissing the rational interests of a major power halfway around the world from us. And this is it.
We'd better grow up as citizens and recalibrate our national identity and interest to reality. We should start with our borders and hemisphere - that's a 50 year project to repair. Let the rest of the world eat itself. We have better ideas and values, but instead we let ourselves become a bullying empire. There was a time when we were a beacon. But that SOB Teddy Roosevelt and then Wilson and FDR turned us into just another empire. And so many dopes followed them along on the path to destruction.
And here we are. Inches from a war with Russia, a land war we could not win with our current forces and readiness...How many Americans know that?