As the U.S. pursues a maritime strategy that prioritizes a blue-water navy, Russia appears to be betting on smaller, missile-laden vessels to help it slowly gain territory and influence, according to military analysts.
Smaller Russian warships like corvettes and frigates aren’t built for fights with the U.S. Navy.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Saturday stressed that the public needs to keep up its support of Ukraine after nearly four months of war.
Media reports said:
“The worry that we have is that a bit of Ukraine-fatigue is starting to set in around the world,” Johnson told reporters on the back of a trip to Kyiv. “It is very important to show that we are with them for the long haul and we are giving them that strategic resilience that they need.”
Kyiv’s Theory of Victory
As Russia’s all-out war of aggression in Ukraine drags on for a fourth consecutive month, calls for dangerous deals are getting louder. As fatigue grows and attention wanders, more and more Kremlin-leaning commentators are proposing to sell out Ukraine for the sake of peace and economic stability in their own countries. Although they may pose as pacifists or realists, they are better understood as enablers of Russian imperialism and war crimes.
In the gathering war of attrition in Ukraine, Russia has the upper hand – and Ukraine’s only hope is for international support to now be stepped up.
The Russian war in Ukraine is entering its third stage and is finally becoming a war of attrition. This requires readiness not only on the part of Ukraine, but also its international partners. The short initial race is over, and now the winner will be the one who has not only the will to win, but also enough resources to continue to maintain the current dynamics of the confrontation. It is obvious that despite international sanctions, the Russian economy is in a much better condition than the destroyed Ukrainian economy. Wars of attrition are won by the rear, and the only rear left in Ukraine is the international coalition in support of Ukraine, which was formed in April 2022 in Rammstein, Germany.
In recent years, hard-line views once limited to ultra-nationalist Russian politicians like Vladimir Zhirinovsky have increasingly been espoused by the highest levels of the country’s leadership. How has this happened?
Can the West still provide the arsenal of democracy?
The war in Ukraine has proven that the age of industrial warfare is still here. The massive consumption of equipment, vehicles and ammunition requires a large-scale industrial base for resupply – quantity still has a quality of its own. The mass scale combat has pitted 250,000 Ukrainian soldiers, together with 450,000 recently mobilised citizen soldiers against about 200,000 Russian and separatist troops. The effort to arm, feed and supply these armies is a monumental task. Ammunition resupply is particularly onerous. For Ukraine, compounding this task are Russian deep fires capabilities, which target Ukrainian military industry and transportation networks throughout the depth of the country. The Russian army has also suffered from Ukrainian cross-border attacks and acts of sabotage, but at a smaller scale. The rate of ammunition and equipment consumption in Ukraine can only be sustained by a large-scale industrial base.
At the June summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, maintenance of support to Ukraine, the applications for NATO membership by Finland and Sweden, and the rollout of the new Strategic Concept will appropriately be front and center. But, if NATO is to maintain its long-term capacity for deterrence and defense, it will be equally important to take actions to implement four key operational priorities, each derived from initial lessons underscored by the Russia-Ukraine war. Specifically, effective deterrence and defense requires: upgraded force capabilities immediately focused on readiness and sustainability, and supported by the requisite funding; additional forward force deployments, including a substantial European component; enhanced cybersecurity resilience based on zero-trust architectures for critical infrastructures necessary for defense mission assurance; and long-term limitations on trade with Russia to limit its capacity to modernize its armed forces.
Protests have erupted around the world against Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons. But any country in possession of nuclear weapons also puts us all in perpetual danger. (Photo: Kwh1050/Creative Commons)
At the outset of his invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that other countries “will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history” if they intervened.
President Biden is confronted with two decisions: The first is whether to go to Saudi Arabia this summer to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to try to persuade him to increase his country’s oil output. The second is whether to speak directly with Vladimir Putin to try to end the war in Ukraine. Neither outreach is a form of recognition; it is a necessity for much larger considerations.
In the broadest sense, Russia has thus far failed to secure its strategic objectives in Ukraine, said the undersecretary of defense for policy.
Colin Kahl spoke about the war in Ukraine and the pacing challenge of China at the Center for a New American Security’s National Security Conference Tuesday.