Sergei Shoigu and Vladimir Putin celebrated Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow on Friday. Contributor (Getty Images)
Two years have passed since the large-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. From the battlefield – with the withdrawal from Avdiivka – and from the international political arena – with the blocking of American aid – worrying news is accumulating for Kiev and the democratic countries that support it. Is Vladimir Putin winning the war?
The balance of a conflict of this magnitude, in which dozens of countries are indirectly involved, is very complex. The analysis must take into account the tactical and strategic levels as well as the military, political and economic dimensions. Overall, there is no denying that after the failure of its lightning invasion plan and the ongoing territorial losses in the first phase of the war, Russia initially managed to stabilize the situation and is now reaping successes of a completely different kind – such as through Avdiivka and the state of US politics symbolized. So there is a trend reversal.
However, this does not exclude the accumulation of terrible failures on the Russian record and does not mean that the conflict is inevitably heading towards a Russian victory. Below is an assessment of the war situation, divided into two sections: battlefield and international arena.
Battlefield
There is a broad consensus among experts and politicians that the situation on the front has become less favorable for Ukraine in recent months. Today's case of Avdiivka comes in addition to that of Bakhmut in May.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Mira Milosevich-Juaristi, senior researcher on Russia, Eurasia and the Balkans at the Elcano Royal Institute, sums up her point of view: “Right now I think that at the tactical level Russia is winning the war.” It is conquering territory. Russia has learned lessons, improved coordination between its various armies, and its single command is functioning much better than it did at the start. It has also understood how to adapt its military industry to the weapons that the West supplies to Ukraine. He’s not achieving his political goals, that’s another question, but on a tactical level he’s winning.”
“The military scenario for Ukraine is currently negative, because in addition to the obvious ammunition problem, there is also a mobilization problem.” “At this stage, the opportunity is on the Russian side,” agrees Borja Lasheras, special adviser on Ukraine at the European External Action Service and senior Expert at the CEPA think tank.
“The ammunition shortage is due to several factors,” Lasheras continues. “On the one hand, the slowness in expanding Western production capacities and taking on commitments by Kiev's partners. The flow of American aid has dried up in recent months. On the other hand, Russia's allies are supporting it very well with supplies. We are witnessing a brutal awakening to the benefits of peace [la reducción de la inversión en Defensa en Europa tras el fin de la Guerra FrÃa]and we suffer from the irony that countries like North Korea or Iran, which are less developed and wealthy than Western democracies, provide better support to their ally in terms of military supplies.
The question of support for Kiev is crucial. This was emphasized by the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security of the EU, Josep Borrell, this Friday at an event organized by EL PAÍS to present the documentary film The Soldiers of Tank 27. “Russia did not win this war, but it still won it. “I haven’t lost it. Whether he loses or not depends not only on what the Ukrainians do, but also on whether all of us who promised them support keep our word. Russia has lost a lot on the ground. But he now has around 400,000 soldiers there, more than at the beginning of the invasion. We have to compensate for the difference in potential.”
The panorama is disturbing. “Avdiivka does not have to be the norm, it was a front with very special characteristics. But if we continue with the delays in deliveries of ammunition and military equipment, it is likely that in the coming months we will see further tactical advances from Russia on quantitative grounds, starting with Robotine,” says Lasheras.
Although worrying elements are piling up on the table, for now the Ukrainian setbacks, while painful due to their symbolism, are of limited spatial significance. Furthermore, the balance is not unidirectional. The constant Russian setbacks in the Black Sea are one example, and some successful attacks on the Russian rearguard illustrate this.
Declassified U.S. government information estimated in December that Russia had suffered about 315,000 combat casualties – dead and wounded – nearly 90% of the troops it had when the invasion began. Thanks to the mobilization ordered by Putin, there are now 470,000, according to estimates by Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds of the Royal United Services Institute. On the other hand, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that Russia lost about 3,000 main battle tanks in two years, almost all it had in the attack, but its industry supplies the military with about 1,500 per year. The majority of these are renovated old vehicles.
Russia's relative progress on the ground in Ukraine is therefore accompanied by enormous blood loss. President Volodymyr Zelensky said at the Munich Security Conference that the casualty rate in the Avdiivka battle was seven to one, which was unfavorable for the Russians. Verifying the actual number is an almost impossible task, but Russia is undoubtedly losing a lot. Not only because of the losses, but also because of the need to transform Russia's economy – which was already a fragile hydrocarbon monoculture – into a wartime economy, and because of the loss of large numbers of citizens, many of them highly skilled, who left the country due to the current circumstances.
The international arena
The conflict in Ukraine is not a world war, but a global war. If Ukraine, on the one hand, receives the support of the Ramstein Group, Russia, on the other hand, has arms supplies from Iran and North Korea, as well as a China that gives it political and economic oxygen. Any assessment of the two years of war must take into account the international scenario. And this brings with it enormous setbacks for the Kremlin, which arose in the recent past and will bear bitter fruit in the future.
First, the expansion of NATO, which Finland has already joined and which will include Sweden in the coming days after the last pending country, Hungary, ratified its accession. Two major reinforcements of the alliance that extend the border between it and Russia by 1,300 kilometers and turn the Baltic Sea into a kind of NATO lake.
On the other hand, the invasion of Ukraine leads to a significant increase in military spending by European countries. NATO members in the Old Continent spent $300 billion on defense in 2021, equivalent to 1.7% of GDP. According to the alliance, spending is expected to reach 380,000 in 2024, which corresponds to 2%. There will be another leap forward in the coming years. Germany in particular is undergoing a real revolution in its military mentality. It will take time for this shift to bear concrete fruit in the form of improved operational capabilities, but it is clearly a strategic setback for Russia.
Although Western sanctions have failed to slow the Russian economy, it is also increasingly dependent on China. Some experts speak of a situation that is almost tantamount to vassalage.
“At the international level, Russia will have more and more difficulties. Of course with regard to Western countries, but it is also true that dependence on China and India, the largest buyers of hydrocarbons, is increasing. And also from third countries in the post-Soviet space that serve to circumvent sanctions, especially with regard to civilian technology that may have military use,” says Milosevich-Juaristi, who will publish El Zombie Empire in the coming days Russia and the World Order (Gutenberg galaxy).
In the case of China, the risk of Russian dependence is very high. This is where much of the technology comes from, which the West denies Moscow and which Russia cannot produce. In addition, Beijing is paying dearly for its position as a vital supplier of oxygen, as evidenced by its stubbornness in putting a new gas pipeline into operation between the two countries and waiting for Russia to offer even better conditions.
“The failure of the original Russian attack plan has led to this war of attrition, forcing Russia to be heavily dependent on China as a junior partner in a alliance that proclaims itself to be borderless but clearly has limits.” This is a setback . But it is too early to say whether it is a strategic failure,” says Lasheras, author of Ukraine Station: The Country That Was (KO Books).
Milosevich-Juaristi points out another important aspect. “Russia’s most important political goal is to transform Ukraine into a subjugated and distant state from the West.” And it is currently failing to achieve that.”
Ukrainian society is more determined than ever to integrate into the major Western institutions NATO and the EU. And in turn, Europe's determination to integrate Ukraine is now greater than ever. The EU has granted candidate country status to Ukraine and Moldova.
However, there is no doubt that there are also shifts on the international stage that greatly benefit Putin's interests.
First, the paralysis of American politics, in which the obstructionism of a Republican Party dominated by Trumpism blocks the delivery of new aid. Additionally, the prospect of former President Donald Trump winning the election again represents a significant change.
“It is important to understand that the decisive plan of this Russian leadership is to rebuild Great Russia and destroy NATO.” They have no other. The worst thing is that in their minds they see themselves on the verge of achieving it because they see that part of the United States is in some way okay with it,” Lasheras says.
In the short term, the consequences for Ukraine could be very serious. “Unfortunately, increased military spending by European countries will not be able to replace US aid to Ukraine,” says Milosevich-Juaristi.
In the medium to long term, the impact can be global. “Security guarantees depend on two things: capacity and credibility.” And failing to be credible risks hostile actors making a misjudgment and thinking there will be no response if they act. When the main provider of that guarantee, that credibility, which continues to be the United States, has a potential president telling Putin to go ahead and do whatever he wants, then that's really worrying, Lasheras says.
A breakup of NATO would be a major victory for Putin.
Meanwhile, the battle of public opinions is also taking place. Russia has long cultivated and refined practices of disinformation and disruption of the societies of opposing countries.
In parallel, in certain Western public opinions there is the problem of sheer inattention or lack of full awareness of what is at stake. This was pointed out by Margarita Robles, Minister of Defense of Spain, last Wednesday at an event organized by El Grand Continent magazine at the Círculo de Bellas Artes in Madrid. “I have doubts; I see that the Ukraine issue is forgotten in Spanish public opinion and people are not aware of what is at stake. The fact is that the war in Ukraine is not just the legitimate defense of a country that is under attack in its territorial integrity. It is the defense of a set of values, of course peace, security and freedom, as well as democratic values, in the face of the actions of an autocrat. If Ukraine doesn't win this war, everything else will go downhill. And we have to take that into account. “The support we give to Ukraine is support for our community of values, our democratic principles, our freedom and security.”
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_