Vladimir Putin's missile barrage against Ukraine is a sign of his shrunken options, experts are saying. In fact, reliance on missiles stems from Russia's lack of air superiority over Ukraine, a lack that points to a gloomy future for Putin's "special military operation."
America went through a similar experience in Vietnam, when it tried to make up for its limited success on the ground with furious air attacks. But, as Washington learned, air attacks are insufficiently effective without strong success on the ground.
But unlike the United States in Vietnam, Moscow lacks control over Ukrainian air space, which would allow for the intensive strikes by jet and helicopter that helped it defeat rebels in Syria and Chechnya. Without air superiority, and little chance of attaining it considering Ukraine's effective antiaircraft systems, Russia faces grim prospects on the battlefield.
And yet Russian hawks who have been screaming for major shows of force don't seem to comprehend the military realities, thus pushing Putin into a very bad position.
The dictator has pledged even greater escalation if Ukraine touches Russia's critical infrastructure, which is what he considers the bombed Kerch Strait bridge to the Crimean Peninsula that was illegally seized from Ukraine in 2014.
But the real reason for this act and his threats is that Russia is losing the ground war in Ukraine, and Putin's policies threaten to sacrifice the remaining troops in eastern and southern Ukraine. The Kerch bridge is crucial to a regular and heavy duty supply chain to forces in southern Ukraine, as well as to Putin's naval force based at Sevastopol in Crimea. Though the Russians say the bridge is still usable by car, bus and trains, the loss of a roadway and the weakening of the structure mean that trucks must now be ferried over the strait.
Logistics experts are confident that the bridge damage creates a bad enough bottleneck to worsen the Russian army's already highly strained supply situation.
Russia still faces the same strategic difficulties it did before Monday's attacks: demoralized and poorly equipped forces spread along 600 miles of front, with long supply lines vulnerable to Ukrainian attacks.
NATO's secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, described Russia's missile barrage as a sign of weakness. "Russia is actually losing on the battlefield," he told reporters.
From Reuters, we have,
America went through a similar experience in Vietnam, when it tried to make up for its limited success on the ground with furious air attacks. But, as Washington learned, air attacks are insufficiently effective without strong success on the ground.
But unlike the United States in Vietnam, Moscow lacks control over Ukrainian air space, which would allow for the intensive strikes by jet and helicopter that helped it defeat rebels in Syria and Chechnya. Without air superiority, and little chance of attaining it considering Ukraine's effective antiaircraft systems, Russia faces grim prospects on the battlefield.
And yet Russian hawks who have been screaming for major shows of force don't seem to comprehend the military realities, thus pushing Putin into a very bad position.
The dictator has pledged even greater escalation if Ukraine touches Russia's critical infrastructure, which is what he considers the bombed Kerch Strait bridge to the Crimean Peninsula that was illegally seized from Ukraine in 2014.
But the real reason for this act and his threats is that Russia is losing the ground war in Ukraine, and Putin's policies threaten to sacrifice the remaining troops in eastern and southern Ukraine. The Kerch bridge is crucial to a regular and heavy duty supply chain to forces in southern Ukraine, as well as to Putin's naval force based at Sevastopol in Crimea. Though the Russians say the bridge is still usable by car, bus and trains, the loss of a roadway and the weakening of the structure mean that trucks must now be ferried over the strait.
Logistics experts are confident that the bridge damage creates a bad enough bottleneck to worsen the Russian army's already highly strained supply situation.
Russia still faces the same strategic difficulties it did before Monday's attacks: demoralized and poorly equipped forces spread along 600 miles of front, with long supply lines vulnerable to Ukrainian attacks.
NATO's secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, described Russia's missile barrage as a sign of weakness. "Russia is actually losing on the battlefield," he told reporters.
From Reuters, we have,
Western military analysts say the strikes came at a staggering cost, depleted a dwindling supply of long-range missiles, hit no major military targets and are unlikely to change the course of a war going badly for Moscow.
"Russia lacks the missiles to mount attacks of this sort often, as it is running out of stocks and the Ukrainians are claiming a high success rate in intercepting many of those already used," wrote Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King's College London.
Ukraine says Russia fired 83 cruise missiles Monday and that it shot down at least 43 of them. Moscow says it fired more than 70 and all its targets were hit. Each Kalibr cruise missile is estimated to cost $6.5 million, meaning Moscow fired around half a billion dollars worth of missiles in a single day.
As far back as July, Joseph Dempsey and Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies noted that Russia was increasingly using anti-ship missiles to strike targets on the ground. This "suggests that Moscow is having to muster its remaining conventionally armed land attack cruise missile resources more carefully," they wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment