"What is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” -Winston Churchill, 1940
In early February of this year, I warned that historical Russia was back. In a series of articles this spring, I described how the Russian idea is still alive today, and how Russian history, its civilization, and culture help us understand Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine.[1]
By looking back in history, we can more easily understand why the world today looks the way it does.
Putin’s obsession with Ukraine was described by Casey Michel, in an article published two days before the invasion, as “pure, genuine, neo-imperialism, and a desire to reclaim territories Putin believes belong to Moscow.”[2]
Putin himself was alleged by CIA director Bill Burns to have expected to have captured Kyiv in two days, believing that Ukraine was weak, that Europe was distracted and would not be able or willing to respond effectively, that Russia's economy was prepared, and that the Russian army was modernized and would fight effectively. Already in the second week of March, two weeks after the invasion, Burns was able to conclude that Putin was wrong on all counts.[3]
Almost five and a half months into the war, Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, and according to American sources, approximately 15 Russian soldiers have been killed and up to 000 injured so far during the invasion.[4] Other sources state a total figure of nearly 75.[5]
Just a few weeks ago, it was estimated that Russia was losing hundreds of casualties every day. Thousands of lieutenants and captains were reported to have been killed, which has affected the leadership of the Russian army.[6]
At the same time, the Russian leadership continues to make statements that cannot be interpreted in any other way than that it wants to occupy large parts of Ukraine, and threatens other neighboring countries. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, recently expressed the opinion that Russia would “help” the Ukrainian people get rid of the “regime.”[7]; Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian President and now Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, recently wrote a post on the Russian VK page describing Kazakhstan and Georgia as artificial states, and that “all the peoples who once lived in the mighty Soviet Union will once again live in friendship.”[8]
It is not difficult to agree with Kristina Hook, who has described the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an “expansionist war of conquest with profound geopolitical and moral consequences.”[9] Hook goes so far as to describe the invasion as nothing more than an elaborate genocide of Ukraine.
That Ukraine must win the war against Russia appears to be an absolute necessity for the Ukrainian nation and its people.
Ukraine can win
On July 29, the British Ministry of Defense described the Kremlin on Twitter as “desperate,” with losses in the tens of thousands. The head of MI6 simply responded, “Running out of steam…”[10]
Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King's College London, now believes that the war is going in Ukraine's favor. While Russia will have difficulty replacing personnel and equipment, Ukraine has received an influx of Western weapons.[11] Ukraine's priority is now a counterattack against Kherson in the southern part of the country and at the end of July Freedman was able to report that Ukraine is now only 50 kilometers from Kherson.
A counterattack is important from a Ukrainian perspective for several reasons. The situation in Kherson is deteriorating, with numerous documented crimes against the local population. At the same time, Ukraine must show the West that arms deliveries make a difference on the battlefield, and that a peace settlement with Russia is not necessary when success is achieved.[12]
Timothy Snyder also now believes that the war is in Ukraine's favor, and lists seven different factors that influence the war in Ukraine's favor (time, finances, logistics, terrain, combat style, ethos, and strategy). Snyder describes Russia's perhaps only way to win is to convince the West that Ukraine cannot win the war. Snyder advises us in the West to be patient, support Ukrainian democracy, and continue to supply weapons.[13]
Similar reasoning is heard from Mick Ryan, a retired Australian major general, who believes that we will soon see a Ukrainian counterattack in southern Ukraine, for several reasons. Ryan believes that a defeat in southern Ukraine would be a significant loss for Putin. According to Ryan, it would, like Freedman's reasoning, give further strength to those in the West who support Ukraine and prove that the country has the will and ability to defeat Russia. Perhaps even more importantly, a victory for Ukraine around Kherson would upset the Russian strategy, since according to Ryan it would have failed if it could not strangle Ukraine's exports. Finally, Ryan believes that a victory for Ukraine in southern Ukraine presents the Russian army with difficult strategic choices, especially if Sevastopol falls within range of Ukrainian artillery.[14]
Richard Hooker, in an article for The Atlantic Council, wrote an article on July 20 titled “Ukraine can win,” in which he claims that if the West takes the right steps and delivers the systems required for high-intensity combat, Ukraine will win. Hooker makes a more conservative assessment than Ryan and Freedman, predicting that if Ukraine is given the opportunity to be supplied with new systems and trained, it will be able to go on the offensive in 2023. Ukraine’s high morale, innovation, effective leadership, and will to win will surpass that of the Russian army.[15]
It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that a Ukrainian expert described how Russia is “desperately trying to hold on” to the west of the Dnieper near Kherson, as it would otherwise be difficult to defend the coastline along the Sea of Azov.[16]
While Russian soldiers accuse their superiors of imprisoning those who do not want to fight in Ukraine[17], Ukraine should eventually be able to expand its army to over a million men – more than Russia can hope for without full mobilization.[18]
According to Lieutenant Colonel Joakim Paasikivi at the Finnish National Defense Academy, Ukraine now has the strategic initiative.[19]
What the West must do
In order for Ukraine to emerge victorious from the war against Russia, and to reclaim the areas that Russia temporarily occupies and has occupied since 2014, the West needs to show patience, and think long-term and strategically. I noted already on February XNUMXnd of this year that the EU should urgently change its energy policy, and that energy policy is security policy. This is even more relevant today than before the invasion.[20]
Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, correctly notes that the theory that economic interdependence would create peaceful international relations has been proven wrong. The EU, Borrell notes, must become a real power player, and since the EU does not want to go to war with Russia, sanctions and support for Ukraine are at the heart of the EU's response to the Russian invasion.[21] Sweden's voice, together with countries such as Poland and Lithuania, is extremely important within the EU for support to Ukraine, and for sanctions on Russian gas, among other things, to continue.
It is now beyond doubt that the Western sanctions against Russia are working and have targeted nearly 1200 individuals, 100 different entities and a number of sectors of the Russian economy.[22] A study by the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute shows that Western sanctions are “catastrophically crippling” the Russian economy. Russian imports have largely ceased, the country suffers from widespread supply shortages, and the equivalent of three decades of foreign investment has been lost.[23] The report concludes that “by any measure, and at all levels, the Russian economy is in turmoil, and now is not the time to hit the brakes.”[24]
Meanwhile, US arms deliveries continue. As recently as early August, John Kirby announced that the US would send an additional $550 million worth of equipment to Ukraine, bringing the US alone to over $8 billion worth of equipment and weapons to Ukraine since the Russian invasion.[25]
While the latest deliveries include HIMARS and artillery ammunition, US Air Force General CQ Brown has interestingly suggested that the West should supply fourth-generation fighter jets to Ukraine, naming Rafale, Eurofighter, and JAS as possible options.[26]
Many experts are now convinced that Ukraine, with the right equipment and support from the West, can win the war against Russia. It is now up to us in Europe, together with the United States, to prove that Western democracy, the European security order, and Ukraine's independence are worth defending.