The Russian
Way of War: Part Two
Sometime in
the distant future, when the Russian internal documents relating to the conduct
of this war in Ukraine are made public, one of the great conundrums of our time
may finally receive a definitive answer:
why Russia has been prosecuting its ‘special military operation’ in
Ukraine with one hand tied behind its back, always holding back the vast destructive
forces at its command, and so drawing out the operation and suffering losses of
its soldiers in a way which a more cruel, ‘American style’ campaign would
largely have avoided.
At the very
start of the armed conflict, I remarked on the specifics of what I called ‘the
Russian Way of War’ now being applied in Ukraine. This approach does not
inflict death on huge numbers of civilians, does not count on a ‘shock and awe’
initial attack to demoralize and overrun the enemy. I said at the time that the overriding
considerations on the Russian side were the traditional ‘brotherly’ relations
between Ukrainians and Russians, who were extensively intermarried and had
relations on both sides of the national frontiers. The intent of Vladimir Putin
and his war collegiums was to do minimal damage to the Ukrainian people, to try
to separate the ‘healthy’ elements in the Ukrainian military command from the
rabid nationalist Azov and similar irregular forces that had become embedded in
the army over the past eight years. If the two could be separated, the war
could be won with absolute minimum expenditure of materiel and loss of life.
However, in
the early weeks of the operation, after it had become manifestly clear that
these were illusions, that Russia was facing a unified military force supported
by widespread popular civilian backing, still there was no change visible in
how Russia was operating on the ground. The only hint of change to come was the
refocusing of available forces on the capture of Mariupol, to secure the whole
Azov Sea littoral and the progressive redirection of the ground forces to the
encirclement of the major part of the Ukrainian army that was entrenched just
to the west of the line of demarcation with Donbas. In compensation, there was
the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev and Chernigov, in the north.
There has
been a lot of supposedly expert analysis of the war from British, American and
other retired generals. Add to that the
ignorant but voluble speculations of simple Western journalists, especially
ladies, who have never held firearms of any kind let alone drawn up battle
plans. All of these Western commentators
begin with assumptions on how an invasion of Ukraine should be fought, assuming the war was unleashed by the USA or
Britain. Any deviation by the Russian
forces from the timetable or scope of such a Western style assault aimed, of
course, at overthrowing the regime in Kiev and subjugating the entire country,
is deemed to be a failure of morale or ability to coordinate air cover,
artillery and other elements of the battle. Full stop. The conclusion they
reach is that the Russian armed forces are far less ominous than we had feared,
and we should not hesitate to expand NATO and push them back.
At the same
time, no one, NO ONE, in the West has commented on a few obvious facts that
place the Russian ‘military operation’ totally outside the traditions of
invasions or other acts of aggression.
The Russians’ choice of words to describe what they were about to do was
anything but arbitrary. They had specific objectives of ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification,’
to which was added in the past couple of weeks, almost as an afterthought, to
secure the Donbas from any further attacks by Ukrainian forces positioned on
the other side of the line of demarcation.
The importance of the last-named would not be obvious to Western
readers, because the only war pictures put up on Western media are those
showing suffering of residents of Mariupol or Khamatorsk. However, Russian television viewers are shown
daily the consequences of Ukrainian missile and artillery barrages on the
civilian population of Donetsk and surrounding villages, with a daily death
toll and casualties requiring hospitalization. This is only the tail of a story
of vicious attacks in violation of the Minsk Accords that goes back eight years
and produced more than 14,000 civilian deaths, of which the West has chosen to
be oblivious to this very day.
The appointment
several days ago of General Dvornikov to head the next phase of the war, the
full liberation of the Donbas and liquidation of the main concentration of the
Ukrainian ground forces, received immediate comment in the Western media. Russian media are just beginning to catch up
and publish their evaluation of what changes in the conduct of the war may
result.
Dvornikov distinguished
himself as commander of Russia’s very successful military operation in Syria.
He was known for effective coordination of air and ground forces, something for
which the first phase of the war did not seem impressive, whether because of
incompetence, as Western analysts insisted, or because of avoidance of
collateral damage and loss of civilian life within the constraints of a
geography where the enemy troops were intermixed with residential housing, as
the Russian narrative insisted. The new
battlefield in Donbas would be far better suited to “technical” solutions of
artillery and missile strikes.
However,
the appointment of Dvornikov is only one sign that the Russian Way of War is
being reconsidered at present in the highest levels of the Russian
command. In part, this is so because of
the ever more daring, or shall we say impudent American and NATO promises to supply
heavy armaments to Kiev. The alarm bells rang in Moscow yesterday over
statements by a Deputy Secretary of Defense in Washington that the next level
of support to Kiev would include intermediate range missiles capable of
striking at airfields within Russia.
The Russian
response to that threat was immediate.
General Konashenkov, the spokesman of the Russian military throughout
the campaign, issued a special announcement that any attacks on Russian territory
coming from Ukraine would result in Russia’s directing strikes at the
decision-making instances in Kiev, which the Russian command had so far chosen
not to do. This obviously means the
Ministry of Defense, Zelensky’s presidential administration, perhaps the Rada,
as well as their handmaidens including Ukrainian television towers would now be
instantly destroyed. De facto regime
change would be the direct consequence.
While the
leaders of several European countries have in the last couple of days publicly
discussed whether Russian actions in Ukraine constitute “genocide,” as Joe
Biden blithely declared, no one seems to remark on the most glaring contradictions
to any notion of Russia’s presently staging an all-out war in Ukraine.
Ursula van
der Leyen, Boris Johnson and the prime ministers of Poland and several Baltic
States calmly travel to Kiev, stroll down the boulevards of central Kiev
together with Zelensky, as if no war existed.
To be sure, they are surrounded by security escorts, but these are only
of value should there be some violent passersby on their route. The possibility of a Russian missile attack
seems not to cross anyone’s mind. In
light of Konashenkov’s remarks, all that may change abruptly at any moment.
*****
From the
beginning, I have directed attention to what Russian elites have to say about
the ‘special military operation.’ One of
my key markers has been the Evening with
Vladimir Solovyov political talk show and yesterday’s edition provided a
lot of food for thought.
First, with
regard to sanctions, there was near unanimity among the panelists that it is
time for Russia to respond directly and strongly to the full economic and
hybrid war that the United States and Europe are now waging against their
country. They call for an immediate
cut-off of gas supplies to Europe, to an embargo on export of titanium and
other essential raw materials for advanced industrial production in the
West. One alternative to these cruel and
devastating moves against Europe would be to try it all out first on Japan,
which has been a fervent enforcer of the trade war on Russia and even in the
past few days publicly came out in support of the Azov ultranationalists, by
removing them from the list of global terrorists. Russia should impose a total commercial
embargo on Japan, beginning with hydrocarbons and extending into all spheres,
such as fishing concessions. Moreover, Russia should position tactical nuclear
weapons and other significant armaments on the Kurile Islands as a firm reminder
of who owns these territories now and forever.
As regards
military action, the consensus of the panelists was also in favor of all-out
war on Ukraine, to hell with collateral civilian casualties. The war must be
ended quickly, decisively and with minimum further Russian casualties.
Period. As several noted, it is highly
likely that television viewers are also confused by Russia’s ‘softly, softly’
approach till now. While they trust the
Commander in Chief, they want more decisive action in the air and on the ground. It is worth mentioning that the panelist who
represents Russia’s ‘creative’ classes, director general of the Mosfilm
studios, Karen Shakhnazarov, who had been wavering in his support for the war a
couple of weeks ago, was now ‘all in’ and doing his best to find solutions to winning
the kinetic war at once.
Then there
was also the question of war mobilization. The consensus of panelists was that
the Russian economy has to be put on a full war footing, with decision making
concentrated in the Executive and removed from the hands of entrepreneurs. This is required not for the ongoing conflict
with Ukraine but for continuation of the wider war with the U.S.-led West that
constitutes the context for the conflict.
Dispatch of longer range missiles to Kiev would make the USA a
cobelligerent and Russia should be prepared to strike at the ‘decision making’
institutions there.
In short,
the logic of the discussion on Solovyov’s show was that the Russians should
make perfectly plain to Washington that it is courting disaster, that we are
not in a video game but in a life and death struggle in which Americans do not
enjoy immortality.
How much of
this feistiness will influence the next moves from the Kremlin remains to be
seen. But American analysts would do well to cast an eye on programs like
Solovyov’s lest we all move on to end of the world scenarios out of ignorance
and miscalculation.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022