WHAT NEXT FOR UKRAINE?

Twitter thread by Nicholas Drummond - Defence industry analyst and consultant specialising in Land Warfare. UK advisor to KMW. Ex-British Army officer

Blinken & Austin’s meeting with Zelensky shows that US commitment to Ukraine is unwavering. As western military aid arrives in country, Ukrainian forces continue to repel the renewed Russian offensive in the East despite limited territorial gains.

The situation reinforces the belief that the conflict is settling into a longer war of attrition. Russia has 80 BTGs in East Ukraine, but many of these are depleted after action North of Kyiv. So the balance between Ukrainian and Russian forces is becoming more even.

It’s reasonable to assume Russia’s invasion force will be totally exhausted within 8 to 10 weeks, so it is a case of now or never. Some analysts believe that no major second thrust will ever come. As RFAF military power atrophies, UAF are becoming stronger.

There’s a growing sense that Ukraine can prevail. Soon, if not already, Ukrainian forces will be in a position to retake lost ground. Could they regain Crimea and Donbas territories? Quite possibly and they will certainly try. It’s why they need armour and artillery.

Some analysts say that the war was lost in the first week when Russia failed to achieve any of its initial military objectives. Its inability to adjust a bad plan quickly enough allowed Ukrainian forces to significantly degrade irreplaceable Russian mass and combat power.

The situation in Ukraine has been a total humiliation for Putin and Russia. While his grip on power remains unchallenged, he has undoubtedly been weakened domestically. He has to turn this around. For Putin, his only “off-ramp” is victory of some kind in Ukraine.

Any idea of totally conquering Ukraine is now off the menu. The question for Putin is what does success now look like? Annexing the swathe of land between Kharkiv and Dnipro was his best hope of walking away with something tangible, but even this is now looking elusive.

Russia may want to halt where it is now, re-arm and try again in a few months. But Ukraine is unlikely to allow an uneasy stalemate across the new borders Putin has drawn to persist. The most likely scenario is a continued fight until a forced withdrawal is achieved.

Meanwhile, contempt for Putin among Russian intellectuals is growing. Political opponents, like @SobolLubov who represents the jailed activist Alexei Navalny, believe the damage inflicted on Russia’s reputation and economy makes Putin a liability for Russia.

So far, Putin’s grip on power is being reinforced by his control of the media and the message that the Russian people see. Fortunately or rather unfortunately, the constant stream of body bags returning home cannot be hidden. Putin is increasingly on the back foot.

In order to turn the situation around, Putin has changed the narrative. This is no longer a war to contain Ukrainian aggression. It’s about defending Mother Russia against NATO’s desire to destroy it. He is using the aid we are providing as evidence of a proxy war.

This new narrative was predictable. Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, is absolutely right when he says we cannot turn a blind eye to Putin’s invasion of an internationally recognised state. Acceptance would only broaden his imperialist agenda.

So like it or not, NATO feels compelled to counter Russia, but only by arming Ukraine. The hope is that failure in Ukraine will lead to regime change within Russia. We won’t get directly involved and Putin knows this. The problem is that regime change is not guaranteed.

By changing the narrative to a conflict with NATO, Putin can legitimise the wider mobilisation of Russian armed forces. He will also want to force NATO to back off. So it seems more probable that he will resort to the use of chemical or nuclear weapons.

A worrying aspect of this is that Russia believes in the limited use of nuclear weapons. How would we react if Putin used a tactical nuclear weapon? To do nothing would give Putin further license to achieve his expansionist goals. To respond in kind risks Armageddon.

We should be in no doubt that the situation is extremely serious and will require wisdom, judgment and integrity from our leaders. Our best strategy may be to convince China to remove its support for Russia. This could be pivotal in avoiding a global catastrophe.

In the long-term, we obviously want Ukraine to force a complete Russian exit from within its borders. We probably don’t want this to happen too quickly, because a dramatic defeat might force Putin to escalate to avoid humiliation, although he may escalate anyway.

This means we need to be measured in our provision of military aid. We must help Ukraine’s forces to inflict unsustainable attrition. At the same time, we must if we can avoid giving Putin obvious justification for a further Russian ramp-up or the use of WMD.

The situation is analogous to catching a rat: you back it slowly into a corner, so you can grab it before it bites anyone. We cannot afford to underestimate the danger Putin poses, his resolve or the considerable unused military power he still has at his disposal.