Getting out of the Ukrainian quagmire? Part One

Enormous exertion for small gains

”Klishchiivka. I thank our warriors for liberating our land. The 80th Air Assault, 5th Assault, and the renowned 95th Air Assault brigades, as well as the National Police's "Fury" Assault Brigade. I thank everyone who is standing strong from Kupiansk to the left bank of Kherson! (Zelensky September 17 on X, formerly Twitter). Klishchiivka, called a key village in western media, is small village with a pre-war population of around 400.

Deputy defence Minister Hanna Maliar later reported that Ukraine had retaken 51 square km near Bakhmut and more 260 square km in south since the offensive began in the beginning of June. Liberating several villages and the town of Robotyne in the south.

Previously it had been reported that Ukrainian forces had finally breached the first and most formidable Russian defence line near Zaporizhzhia after a strenuous effort to get through vast minefields.

This is what the counteroffensive has achieved until Mid-September, not much to show for their enormous exertion, as the map published by the Institute for the Study of War shows:

Bleeding out Ukrainian forces

While majority of Western leaders are still enthusiastically sending outdated and new equipment to support Ukraine in its U.S. led proxy fight against the Russian invasion. Ukraine is losing thousands of men killed or maimed in the fight, and civilians as well. And the Russians losing even more.

In November 2022 U.S. General Mark Milley reckoned that Russia had 100,000 killed or injured, while the Ukraine might have lost a similar number. According to U.S. officials quoted in August 2023 by the New York Times Russia casualties may have reached 300,000, with as many as 120,000 dead, and 180,000 wounded. While Ukrainian casualties may have reached nearly 200,000, with around 70,000 killed, and around 100,000 to 120,000 wounded. And the numbers are steadily growing in the slugging match between Ukrainian and Russian troops.

While equipment of the army may be replenished, Ukraine is be bleeding out army personnel. “Ukraine has no manpower to replace its strategic reserves. Most of the pool of educated youths who might be drafted either bribed their way out of recruitment or left the country.” Argues Stephen Bryen in Asia Times.

Russia may lose more, but take a look at their demography. Russian numbers seem overwhelming compared to Ukraine’s (Based upon data from Index Mundi):

The difference in size is also reflected in the size of their armies, in personnel and equipment although Ukraine is of cause relying on NATO’s arsenal. (Statista, 2023).

?Material losses

“In the first two weeks of Ukraine’s gruelling counteroffensive, as much as 20 percent of the weaponry it sent to the battlefield was damaged or destroyed, according to American and European officials. The toll includes some of the formidable Western fighting machines — tanks and armored personnel carriers — the Ukrainians were counting on to beat back the Russians.” (New York Times).

Since then, a necessary change in tactics is said to have a led to a reduction of losses, but also a reduction of momentum.

A big reminder that western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles aren’t immune to Russian weapons was the photo of a destroyed Leopard tank, a mine-clearing vehicle and 4 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, in a chaotic group.

ORYX, an open-source intelligence (OSINT) defence analysis website and warfare research group in the Netherlands, have been documenting Russian and Ukrainian equipment losses. According one of their later lists 7 Leopard 2A4 have been destroyed or damaged, while 9 Leopard 2A6 have been destroyed or damaged in the fighting. Of the sparse Challenger tanks provided by Britain at least one has been destroyed.

It may not look catastrophic compared to the number of Soviet areas tanks Ukraine has already lost, but it may show that deliveries of Western tanks may not represent the “Wunderwaffe” hoped for.

The equipment losses and expenditures are massive and there is a constant need for repairs and replenishment. Although Ukraine recently rejected old Leopard 1 tanks gratuitously provided by Denmark and Germany unless they were repaired and upgraded.

And then there are the civilian losses and the enormous material loses in Ukraine, infrastructure energy, buildings etc. An assessment for the first year of war, by the Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations, estimate that the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine has grown to U.S. $411 billion (equivalent of €383 billion).

Stalemate – but still eyeing success

Map showing situation around Robotyne and Verbove on September 24 (The Institute for the Study of War).

Almost simultaneously with President Zelensky’s visit to the U.S., enthusiastic media reported that Ukrainian forces had broken through Russia’s main defence line in the southeast with infantry fighting vehicles and other armoured vehicles.

“Ukrainian troops overcame antitank obstacles including ditches and concrete blocks known as dragon’s teeth near the village of Verbove in the Zaporizhzhia region.” A Ukrainian officer is quoted saying “We are pushing through. We are destroying them. But the price…” (Wall Street Journal).

This was seen as major milestone in the more than three months long Ukrainian counter offensive. Even the cool and imperturbable Sean Bell former Air Vice-Marshall of the RAF, now miliary expert at Sky News UK was clearly exited, when reporting on the Ukraine’s alleged breakthrough Russian defences.

Other saw the breakthrough as a sign that the sluggish Ukrainian counter offensive might finally having have got an opening that could led to more. A German newspaper wrote “Dann ist die Südfront verloren” (Meaning the Russian southern front would be lost), and saw it as “eines von mehreren Indizien, dass die Gegenoffensive jetzt ihre volle Dynamik entfalten k?nnte.”

Then came Ukraine’s success in the attack on the Russian Black Fleet headquarter in Sevastopol, using apparently both drones and Storm Shadow missiles, which was also greeted as success that would diminish the Russian naval dominance of the Black Sea.

Alas, the enthusiasm in the West may be overstate what this actually means for the Ukrainian counter offensive. On September 24 the Institute for the Study of War reported that elements of three Russian divisions were actively defending against the Ukrainian assault, so we must wait and see what the breakthrough will actually achieve in relation to the Ukrainian goal of reaching the coast to cut the Russian force in two.

No wonder that Ukraine is desperately demanding more support from the West.

And time after time the West is reluctantly going to give up on their own previous reservations, and give in to Ukrainian demands.

Crossing red lines in continuing escalation

Since the war began the West has time after time transgressed their own red lines in what has become a continuous escalation of military support for Ukraine, and an anxious probing of Russia’s red lines.

Like the deliveries of British Challenger MBT (main battle tanks), variants of German Leopard MBT’s, and around 30 previously promised U.S. made M1 Abrams MBT’s that are now said to be arriving in Ukraine.

Here a look at some of the latest examples of ongoing and what might be coming contributions to Ukraine. In the apparently unending sequence of western leaders first rejecting Ukraine demands, then realising that Ukraine might be in dire straits, and therefore persuading themselves to dare escalate after all. Fearing evidently that the U.S. led proxy war might be lost, and that all previous help would have been in vain.

Western fighter aircraft

In January 2023, when Ukraine was pleading for F16 fighter aircraft, President Biden still held to the his own red line and said, “NO.” When asked in March if Zelensky did not need F16’s, President Biden answer: “"No, he doesn't need F-16s now.”

Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defence for policy, at a House hearing in February 2023 said that Ukraine had requested as many as 128 fourth generation aircraft, but that U.S. did not see F16s as a top priority right now.

Then in May 2023 President Biden apparently decided to cross his own red line, just as he had done before, and agreed to a plan that would allow European countries with aging F16’s, already destined to be phased out for new aircraft, to train Ukrainian pilots on F 16s in their countries and to send F16s to Ukraine.

The formal approval that the Netherlands and Denmark could send F16’s to Ukraine came in a letter from Secretary of State Blinken in August 2023. Later Norway announce that they would also deliver F 16’s to Ukraine. Training has now begun and even U.S. is taking part in training Ukrainian pilots.

F16s will not be help Ukraine in the ongoing Ukrainian offensive, as the deliveries of F16s cannot begin before the end of the year, meaning that they could first make their presence felt sometime in 2024 and later. General Miley: “There are no magic weapons. An F-16 is not, and neither is anything else.”

“But Kyiv isn’t done asking. Ukraine would need more than 50 or 60 F-16s fully to reequip its air force with its 125 or so aging Soviet-made jets. To help to make up the balance, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky went to Sweden last week and made the case for Stockholm to give away some of its Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighters.” (Forbes, August 25).

Controversial munition

Giving in to new Ukrainian demands for help in the stalling counter offensive, the U.S. has approved deliveries of cluster munition to Ukraine. President admits that it took some time to decide to provide these controversial weapons. Also, a kind of redline transgression, made possible as the U.S. has not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) that prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions.

Defending the transfer of cluster munition to Ukraine, Admiral John Kirby, Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council, has been argued: “While Russia is using them in Ukraine in an aggressive war on another country and indiscriminately killing civilians, the Ukrainians will be using these cluster munitions – obviously, which have a very low dud rate, but they’ll be using to defend their own territory hitting Russian positions.”

So, there we have hit, Ukrainian will surely use cluster munition in more humane way.

A spokesman for the Southern military district in Ukraine also argued that cluster munition "… will further demotivate Russian occupying forces and fundamentally change things in favour of the Ukrainian armed forces." The munitions, he said, would be used strictly within the legal framework, "only for the de-occupation of our territories … They will not be used on Russian territory...They will be used only in areas where Russian military forces are concentrated in order to break through enemy defences."

What is cluster munition and why is its use abhorred? What Ukraine is getting is presumably 155mm DPICM cluster munitions to be used in the many 155mm howitzers they have already got from the West, or it might be 227 mm artillery rockets that can be used in the HIMARS and MLRS launchers.

Taking the artillery rockets as an example, they may contain 644 submunitions, that will be spread over a circular area roughly 200 meters in diameter. A much larger area affected than when using of the usual artillery shells. Thus, able to saturate a much larger area indiscriminately.

The indiscriminate saturation of large areas risks collateral damage, which is one of the reasons for the convention forbidding their use. The other reason is that the submunition may have a large dud rate, meaning that they may not explode immediately, but lay around and represent a long-term risk, not the least for children picking them up.

Giving in to Ukrainian pleading for this kind of munition would seem to indicate a certain desperation on both the Ukrainian and the U.S. side, a realisation that the counter offensive is not going to plan.

Depleted uranium munition

The Department of Defense announced on September 6 that in addition to a new package of weapons and military equipment Ukraine would also get 120mm depleted uranium tank ammunition for Abrams tanks. Earlier the U.K. had provided 120mm depleted uranium tank ammunition for Challenger tanks delivered to Ukraine.

Why use depleted uranium rounds or DU’s? Because the depleted uranium’s high density provides the penetrator of a tank round with a greater momentum and a straighter trajectory, making it possible to penetrate even heavily protected tanks. That is why it was called “silver bullet” in the Gulf War. Tungsten might be an alternative but is less efficient than DU’s. “Whereas tungsten projectiles become rounded at the tip upon impact, uranium shells burn away at the edges. This "self-sharpening" helps them bore into armor” (Scientific American).

This is how one of the newer versions of a 120mm depleted uranium tank round looks: M829A4 120mm Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot (APFSDS). Photo shows the DU penetrator separating.

?“On impact with targets, DU penetrators ignite, breaking up in fragments, and forming an aerosol of particles. These fine dust particles can catch fire spontaneously in air. Small pieces may ignite in a fire and burn, but tests have shown that large pieces, like the penetrators used in anti-tank weapons, or in aircraft balance weights, will not normally ignite in a fire,” (The International Atomic Energy Agency).

Again, a controversial decision as the experience from their use in operation “Desert Storm had shown. Dust from the depleted uranium had resulted in dangerous health problems for the troops. While depleted uranium is not radioactive enough for the radiation to penetrate human skin, it may cause serious health problems if particles are inhaled or ingested. Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by exposure to uranium.. The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.

That is why an International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) wants to ban and eliminate uranium weapons worldwide. Their “use is ethically unreasonable, militarily disproportionate and questionable under international law.”?

Long-range missiles

Ukraine has long pleaded for long-range missiles, not the least to be able to strike Russia in Crimea. The UK were the first to cave in to their pleading and provide an unknown number of the so-called Storm Shadow missile, followed by France with their variant of the same missile, called SCALP (Système de Croisière Autonome à Longue Portée – Emploi Général). The missile is made by MBDA, a European consortium made up of Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo.

The Storm Shadow/ SCALP missile is a fairly long range, deep strike precision weapon, conventional armed. Used against fixed or stationary targets such as hardened bunkers and key infrastructure. Usually operated from aircrafts it is said to possess exceptional accuracy due to its advanced navigation system that combines INS (Inertial), GPS and terrain following systems.

Although looking like a submarine, this is picture of Storm Shadow/SCALP missile mounted on an aircraft pylon (MBDA). Basis specs: Weight 1300 kg, 5 meters long, with a conventional warhead of 450kg, and a range said to be around 250 km’s.

Ukrainian Airforce’s Soviet-era SU-24M Fencer combat aircraft have been adapted to carry this heavy missile. It has been used by the Ukrainians to strike deep behind Russia’s frontlines, and is assumed to have been used in recent deep strikes on infrastructure in Crimea and on the Russian navy in Sevastopol.

Eurasian Times reports that 11 Storm Shadow missiles were used in the September 13 strike on the naval port of Sevastopol, although apparently only 3 missiles slipped through Russian defences hitting a submarine and a landing ship in drydock. On September 20 Ukraine made a new attempt to strike an airbase in Crimea with 8 Storm Shadow missiles, with no missiles striking the target according to Eurasian Times. Later Ukraine struck again: “at around noon on Friday, September 22, Ukraine's Defense Forces successfully struck the Russian Black Sea Fleet Command HQ in temporarily occupied Sevastopol.” (Ukrinform).

Taurus

Storm Shadow /SCALP missiles have not been enough for Ukraine. For some time, they have had their eyes on the German made longer ranging missile “Lenkflugk?rper Taurus KEPD-350.” About the same size as Storm Shadow/ SCALP, it may be used for long range precision strikes on hardened structures like bunkers etc. The German Bundeswehr writes: “Durch vier voneinander unabh?ngige Navigationssysteme findet der Luft-Boden-Lenkflugk?rper sein Ziel sehr zuverl?ssig, auch bei gegnerischen St?rma?nahmen. Der MEPHISTO-Gefechtskopf des Taurus KEPD-350 durchschl?gt im Zusammenwirken mit der Vor-Hohlladung selbst stark geh?rtete Zielstrukturen.” (Bundeswehr).

Now why would Ukraine want Taurus missiles. It might be because the Taurus has a longer range of around 500km, and it might also be more efficient against certain structures. Realizing that Ukraine has been eager to attack the Kerch bridge and made several attempts to put it out of action, one might guess that Taurus missiles would be used to attack the bridge due their longer range. Of course, it would also be possible to strike into Russia itself supplementing the more primitive drone strikes carried out by Ukraine.

For this reason, the possible delivery of Taurus missiles is a very sensitive topic in Germany. While some politicians are eager to provide Ukraine with the Taurus, Chancellor Scholz and others are having serious misgivings. Just the thought of German missiles hitting somewhere in Russia make them shudder, and for now hold back. In order to somehow satisfy the Ukrainian demands it has been the suggested that technical alterations of the Taurus might limit their range to something like the Storms Shadows, in order to make sure that Russia would be out of range, but this has been met with the counter argument that it would demonstrate that Germany did not trust Ukraine.

ATACMS

Among Ukraine’s demands is the long time clamouring for another kind of a long-range missile that can be fired from the HIMARS and MLRS they already have. The ATACMS missile has almost the same size (4meter long) and weight (1300-1700 kilograms) as the Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, but it is ground-based and can be fired from form a modified launch pod mounted on a HIMARS or MLRS.

Several different versions have been produced over time. From MGM-140A, MGM-140B to MGM-168A with different warheads, a range of 70 to 300 km’s, and warhead of 160 to 591kg.

The MGM-140A version may carry 950 M74 APAM (Anti-Personnel Anti-Material submunitions), cluster munition that scatter in mid-air and able to cause destruction of personnel and light material over an area of 33,000 m2. MGM-140B carries the same submunition but only around 300, while other versions may carry Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) guided submunitions to destroy moving armoured units or stationary missile/rocket vehicles. Finally, there is a unitary warhead with higher precision, presumably resulting in less collateral damage.

“While the ATACMS does assume a ballistic arc to its target, it also performs a series of rapid and sudden turns and course corrections on the way to its aimpoint. This is a deliberate function of the ATACMS, as this seemingly erratic flight behavior makes it exceptionally difficult to track or intercept.” (militarytoday.com).

Illustration showing ATACMS being fired from a HIMARS vehicle, diagram of the weapon and a photo of single M74 submunition. M74 is a ball-like, aerial dispersed, centrifugally armed, high-explosive, anti-personnel (AP) submunition.

On his recent visit to the U.S. to argue the case for continued support for Ukraine, President Zelensky met with President Biden and argued his case to sceptical Republican politicians. What he got was a promise of a weapons package worth $325 million. Still no ATACMS’s, and after President Zelensky’s talks with President Biden, National Security Advisor Sullivan told reporters that President Biden had “determined that he would not provide ATACMS, … but he is also not taking it off the table in the future.” The U.S. at present has another excuse for denying Ukraine ATACMS, the limited stockpile they have until they get the new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with a range of 1,000 km.

And then, while writing this, certain news media reports that President Biden again has had had a change of heart during President Zelensky’s visit and is now promising a small number of ATACMS for Ukraine, perhaps reflecting the seriousness of the situation in the field. It is not known what version Ukraine is going to get or perhaps have already got, but a guess might be versions with submunition to attack areas far behind the front.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it First “No chance”, then “No, but we will keep it under consideration” and finally “Yes.” Reluctantly escalating again, daring to challenge Russia even more, in order avoid a defeat in Ukraine.

What More?

Looking back at the previous rounds of first no, then maybe, and finally yes, of escalatory deliveries of different kinds of weapons supposed to provide a decisive advantage for Ukraine, it is evident that they have not brought any decisive advantage. What they may have done is keep Ukraine in the game, not winning their fight, but also not losing. Resulting in a costly continuation of the ongoing slogging match, with Russian counter escalations.

So, what might be the next round of escalations?

Already in 2022 there were talks that Ukraine should be allowed to get U.S. armed drones like the General Atomics MQ-1 Gray Eagle. “The MO-1C Gray Eagle provides reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, command and control, communications relay, signals intelligence, electronic warfare, attack, battle damage assessment, and manned-unmanned teaming capabilities. It is also able to carry 4 hellfire missiles, and fly at 25,000 feet (around 7,5 km) for 30 hours.

This time the usual NO, Maybe and Yes chain seems to have been stopped at NO, or perhaps a meek Maybe. Early in 2023 the U.S. maker of advanced military surveillance drones announced that it was willing to sell two drones to Ukraine for just $1, and called on the U.S. government to approve the deal (according to France 24).

Perhaps because it would be seen as too escalatory, or perhaps because the U.S. itself is already using such drones to provide Ukraine with reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, command and control, communications relay, signals intelligence, and electronic warfare. In March 2023 a Global Hawk drone flying over the Black Sea, presumably on such a mission, was hit in a dangerous close encounter with Russian jets, which damaged the propeller and caused the drone to plunge into the Black Sea.

The U.S. also provide Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircrafts to assist Ukraine. They have the ability to look far beyond the Russian border. Essentially, the Western intelligence data provides Ukrainian planners with a near real-time picture of Russian forces, which in turn enables Ukrainian planners to organize efficient combat operations. One may therefore speculate that the U.S. is deeply involved in providing Ukraine with reconnaissance and surveillance and perhaps ultimately responsible for making it possible for Ukrainian air and sea missiles and drones to hit targets with precision in the Russian occupied areas, the Crimea, the Black Sea – and inside Russia?

With deliveries of advanced weapons and fighter aircraft one may also speculate that this necessitates expert assistance for use and maintenance, in the guise of private western contractors active in Ukraine, perhaps even army personal. For instance, Taurus missiles would require German personnel on the ground.

Interestingly after the meeting with President Zelensky on September 22 it has been announced that Ukraine will launch a joint weapons production with the US. This would allow Kyiv to start producing air defence systems as part of a long-term agreement, and create new jobs in Ukraine.

What’s Next?

What might be expected if the promised support is not enough. What more could or would the West be able to do? More modern airplanes, more personnel assistance? No idea, but perhaps the West is beginning to realise the dangers related to a continued escalation, and an ongoing war. Perhaps until Ukraine is bled out, to put it bluntly, or something else make the Russia give up, or some unintended mishap or provocation leads to open war between NATO and Russia – or the West finally demands Ukraine to accept some kind fait accompli like a DMZ. The last possibility would of cause be the least dangerous way out of the present stalemate.?

… Continuation in Part Two