Russo-Ukrainain War. Day 354: Russia sustains its highest rate of casualties since the start of the war

Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief: Armed Forces regain lost positions in some frontline areas, Ukrainska Pravda reports. “Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, has said that Ukraine’s Armed Forces regained previously lost positions in some parts of the front and strengthened them. […] The situation is most tense on the Donetsk front, where Russian forces is launching up to 50 attacks daily. Fierce battles continue in the area of Vuhledar and Marinka.

We are holding the defence reliably. In some parts of the frontline, we managed to regain our previously lost positions and strengthened them. Despite Russian forces’s constant pressure, we continue to keep Bakhmut under control and are taking steps to stabilise the front line around the city.

Zaluzhnyi noted that the key to success on the battlefield is effective firepower, which requires an appropriate amount of weapons and ammunition. He also shared his concern over Russia’s use of maritime surface drones, which poses a threat to civilian navigation in the Black Sea.”

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1624493617782956032

A video appears to show Russia using a drone boat to attack a key Ukrainian bridge, Insider reports. “A video circulating on social media appears to show a kamikaze Russian drone boat attacking a key Ukrainian bridge connecting to Moldova. The black and white grainy video shows the small craft speeding towards Zatoka bridge, which is south of Odesa, and as it passes underneath, an explosion takes place. Smoke can be seen billowing from the bridge, but it is not apparent how much damage was done.

Some analysts on Twitter suggested it was a drone boat carrying explosives, while others suggested it could be an Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV). […] According to The Telegraph, Russian opposition media confirmed through geolocation that the video does show an attack on the Zatoka bridge. Still, they noted that there had been no reports of damage.

While Ukraine has used drone boats to attack Russian targets in the Black Sea, this may be the first reported use of the weapons by Russia, say reports.”

Russians deploy ships in Black Sea with total salvo of 16 Kalibr missiles, Ukrainska Pravda reports, citing the Ukrainian Navy. “As of lunchtime on 11 February, 11 Russian ships are on combat duty in the Black Sea, including 2 carriers of Kalibr cruise missiles, the total volley of which is 16 missiles. There are no Russian ships in the Azov Sea.”

Border guards shoot down Russian plane near Bakhmut, Ukrainska Pravda reports, citing State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. “Border guards shot down another enemy aircraft in the battle for Bakhmut. […] This is the second confirmed jet destroyed by a Border Guard unit’s man-portable air defence system in a week. The air target, probably a Su-25 attack aircraft, was hit with a foreign-made man-portable air defence system.”

Russia may try to divert Ukrainian forces from the Donbas region by opening a new front, according to New York Times

Attacking from a new front would likely mean advancing toward the northeastern city of Sumy or the 2nd-largest city of Ukraine Kharkiv.https://t.co/lvoGWqMGxi

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) February 11, 2023

1. On the war. 

The Institute for the Study of War has made the following assessment as of  February 11, 2022:

Russia lacks resources to launch massive anniversary offensive, Kyiv Post reports. Russia does not have the resources available to launch a large-scale offensive around the Feb. 24 anniversary of the full-scale invasion, a senior military intelligence official has told Kyiv Post. Andriy Chernyak, a representative of the [Defence Intelligence of Ukraine], claimed rumors and reports of a pending massive attack were misplaced. […]

Chernyak did not deny that Russia was planning something in the coming weeks, saying that right now it was trying to find weaknesses in our defense. However, according to our information, Russian command does not have enough resources for large-scale offensive actions. The main goal of Russian troops remains to achieve at least some tactical success in eastern Ukraine.

Earlier this month Chernyak told Kyiv Post that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered his armed forces to seize the entirety of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine by March, a plan he said was unrealistic. […] Since then and according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russia has already begun an offensive in the Luhansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine where they are making marginal advances along the Kharkiv-Luhansk Oblast border. But the ISW added that the success of Moscow’s plan to take Donetsk and Luhansk regions is not inherent or predetermined. […]

An attack on Kyiv from Belarus is also unlikely in the coming weeks, [Chernyak] told Kyiv Post. […] Russia is facing a lack of precision weapons, and despite that, it will continue to use missile terror against civilians in Ukraine, he said, just before today’s mass missile attack. He added: The Russians have already used more than 80 percent of precision missiles. They are trying to resume their production, but so far, they have not succeeded.”

Wagner boss Prigozhin says Russia could take two years to capture east Ukraine regions, Reuters reports. “The head of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group has said in a rare interview that it could take two years for Moscow to control the whole of two eastern Ukrainian regions whose capture it has stated as a key goal of the war. […]

If we have to get to the Dnipro, then it will take about three years, Prigozhin added, referring to a larger area that would extend to the vast Dnipro River that runs roughly north to south, bisecting Ukraine. The comments provided a rare glimpse into Russian expectations of the likely duration of the conflict, from a man whose private army is at the centre of some of the fiercest fighting. Prigozhin does not speak for the Russian military […].

The United States assesses that Wagner currently has about 50,000 personnel deployed to Ukraine, including 10,000 contractors and 40,000 convicts recruited from Russian prisons. […] Prigozhin said on Friday that Wagner had stopped recruiting prisoners. In the interview, he denied using them as cannon fodder and said losses among prisoners were about the same in percentage terms as for the rest of his fighters.”

‘Significantly degraded’ Russian force is adapting after losses, Defense News reports. “The Pentagon’s international affairs chief said Friday that although Russia has lost tens of thousands of soldiers and likely half its main battle tanks in Ukraine, its forces are adapting and there are deep reserves of personnel. “I think we need to be mindful that as Russia continues to suffer losses in Ukraine, it is learning how to adapt, it is learning tactically, operationally and somewhat strategically,” Celeste Wallander, the assistant defense secretary for international security affairs, said at a Center for a New American Security event. […]

According to Wallander, Moscow overall has committed 80% of its ground forces to the fight, but has seen them significantly degraded. Still, she added, Russia has a bench of personnel that it can draw from, which is playing out in the bloody fight for Bakhmut. Russia presents a mixed picture, she explained: As Western economic restrictions weaken Russia’s industrial capacity, it has bought and used Iranian drones to attack Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure ― and it continues to field substantial air power.

Asked about Russia’s ability to reconstitute itself, Wallander made clear the country is the Pentagon’s No. 2 strategic challenge after China, and will remain so. We are not losing sight of the fact that even as Russia is facing a strategic failure in Ukraine, it will remain a militarily capable adversary, she said. […]

The US is also leading conversations with allies about limited defense-industrial base capacity aimed at providing military aid to Ukraine over the long term while also maintaining allied militaries. While some munition production boosts have begun, US Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks is leading an effort to unclog industrial bottlenecks. “You will begin to see effects over time, and it won’t be just incremental to break some of these bottlenecks,” Wallander said, adding that the war was an unfortunate wakeup call about supply chain challenges.”

The war’s violent next stage, The New York Times reports. “For much of the winter, the war in Ukraine settled into a slow-moving but exceedingly violent fight along a jagged 600-mile-long frontline in the southeast. Now, both Ukraine and Russia are poised to go on the offensive. Russia, wary of the growing Ukrainian arsenal of Western-supplied weapons, is moving first.

Using tens of thousands of new conscripts in the hope of overwhelming Ukraine, its forces are attacking heavily fortified positions across bomb-scarred fields and through scorched forests in the East. They are looking for vulnerabilities, hoping to exploit gaps, and setting the stage for what Ukraine warns could be Moscow’s most ambitious campaign since the start of the war.

Ukraine must now defend against the Russian assault without exhausting the resources it needs to mount an offensive of its own. Kyiv is training thousands of its own soldiers outside the country and scrambling to amass heavy weapons and ammunition, in advance of an assault meant to “break the bones” of Russia’s army, said Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former director of Ukraine’s national security council. Military analysts say it is likely to try to split Russian forces forces into two zones, hoping to smash through Russian lines in the south and put its supply lines running out of Crimea in jeopardy. […]

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has given an order to take all of the Donbas region by March, Ukrainian intelligence says. With around 320,000 Russian soldiers already in Ukraine and 150,000 estimated to be at training sites, the Kremlin could try to overwhelm Ukrainian positions through the sheer volume of attacks.

Russia has already reinforced the eastern frontline in order to assault key Ukrainian positions. It is looking to secure a symbolic victory by finally driving the Ukrainians from Bakhmut, where the battle has been raging since May. Russia is also aiming to secure the supply lines that will be crucial to any success in Ukraine. It has launched a fierce counterattack to protect Kreminna, which sits on a major north-south highway in Luhansk. It is also attacking Vuhledar in the southeast, where Ukrainian positions are just a few miles from the only rail link to Crimea.

Russia is massing tens of thousands of troops in a way that suggests it could try to swing down from the north and up from the south in a pincer movement that encircles Ukrainian forces in the Donbas, military analysts say. But Russia could also try to divert Ukraine’s defenses by opening a new front. Attacking from a new front would likely mean coming from Russian territory itself, so Ukrainians are closely monitoring movements around the border city of Sumy, as well as any attempts to drive back into the Kharkiv region. […]

Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian minister of defence, said he expected the Russian army to attempt the capture of the Donbas and then announce the completion of their special military operation and call for negotiations. But, he noted, it will be the third attempt by Russia to capture the Donbas since the war began; the first two both failed.

Britain’s defense intelligence agency said on Tuesday that Russia had been trying to launch major offensive operations since early last month, but it had only managed to gain several hundred meters of territory per week, because of a lack of munitions and maneuver units.

Ukraine can afford to make tactical retreats, according to military analysts, as long as it does not risk suffering a total collapse of its lines in a way that would result in its troops being encircled. Any battle to score a major breakthrough

Ukrainian lines would begin with even more intense Russian artillery barrages, bombing by ground-attack jets and sorties by low-flying helicopters, said Serhiy Hrabsky a former colonel in the Ukrainian army and commentator on the war for Ukrainian media. That would likely be followed by tank and infantry ground assaults across the buffer zone between trench lines, he said. The main effort will be on the ground, where Russians will use their traditional tactics, a massive concentration of tanks, armored personnel carriers and very intensive artillery fire, Mr. Hrabsky said.

Russia is viewed as wanting to move quickly, with President Vladimir V. Putin pressuring his newly appointed commander in Ukraine, General Valery Gerasimov, to capture territory and signal success to a domestic and international audience, after months of embarrassing setbacks. Russia faces other time pressures. Western weaponry that can make the difference in battles, such as German-made Leopard tanks and American Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, have been promised but not yet arrived. […]

Ukraine has limited prospects to push forward in the east, where Russia has had fortified positions and established supply lines since 2014. To advance elsewhere, Ukraine needs to hold off the Russian offensive while preserving troops and equipment. Ukraine’s most promising counteroffensive is in the south, analysts say. Much of the Russian-occupied territory there is in range of HIMARS rockets, which has forced Russia to move its ammunition depots, command centers and other critical supplies further from the front. Melitopol would be the obvious target for a Ukrainian offensive: the city sits at the intersection of two major highways and a crucial rail line, making it critical to the supply of Russian troops across the south.

If Ukraine can split Russian forces, then it would significantly weaken Russia’s hold on the Kherson region. Without supply routes from the east, Russian reinforcements could only arrive via Crimea — a much longer route that is in the range of HIMARS rockets. But moving forward will be challenging. Russia has built defences across the entire frontline, and its densest network of trenches and anti-tank traps is around Melitopol. […] Russia also believes that will likely be the line of attack, said Nataliya Gumenyuk, the spokeswoman for Ukraine’s southern military command. They are bringing in more soldiers to defend hastily erected defensive positions but she said that Ukraine has been able to limit their ability to bring in heavy equipment. […]

This time, Ukraine wants to keep Russia guessing as to where and when it might strike. Russians are waiting for active moves from our side in the south, Ms. Gumenyuk said. We maintain this tension. This is how we demoralize Russian forces.”

89% of Ukrainians want to keep fighting even after Russian nuclear strike; Euromaidan Press reports. “A representative survey commissioned by the Munich Security Conference for its annual report found that the vast majority of Ukrainians would keep fighting the Russian invasion even in the event of a nuclear strike and see Crimea as indispensable, Tagesspiegel reported.

Committed to have an idea of how Ukrainians themselves view escalation risks, ceasefire conditions, and long-term security guarantees, it found that Ukrainians view the very factors that are decisive for shaping German policy towards Russia — i.e. risk of an escalation — very differently than Germans.

Particularly, “respondents in Ukraine are surprisingly unperturbed by Moscow’s threats, even though the people there would be the first victims of a Russian nuclear strike.”

A Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons is no reason for the overwhelming majority to stop the resistance. 89% of those surveyed said they would continue to fight even in the event of a nuclear attack on a Ukrainian city. Apparently, they weight the risk associated with giving way significantly higher than a possible nuclear escalation, Tagesspiegel writes.

The question of acceptable conditions for a ceasefire with Russia also leads to clear answers. For the vast majority, restoring sovereignty over all Ukrainian territory is a prerequisite for a ceasefire and negotiations. For 85% of those surveyed, Russia’s withdrawal to pre-24 February 2022 positions is not an acceptable basis for a ceasefire.

Regarding long-term security guarantees. 75% of Ukrainians believe that without Western security guarantees, Ukraine will never be safe from Russia; 72% require long-term supplies of arms from the West; 2/3 are convinced that Ukraine will never be safe outside of NATO.

These attitudes of Ukrainians “limit the menu of resilient peace solutions,” the Munich Security Forum researchers write.”

 

1. Consequences and what to do?

German defence minister pushes for 10 bln euro budget increase – Spiegel. Reuters reports. “German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius is pushing for a 10 billion euro increase of the defence budget in 2024 to help refill depleted ammunition stocks, Spiegel magazine reported on Friday. His ministry was concerned as the 100 billion euro special fund announced by Chancellor Olaf Scholz in February did not include funds for munitions purchases. Expected salary increases after the next round of wage talks might further restrict the scope for investment. […]

While Berlin has relied on the 100 billion euro fund to pay for new military equipment, the regular 2023 defence budget has actually declined by about 300 million euros. At around 50 billion euros it remains well short of 75 billion euros, or 2% of economic output, Germany needs to meet its NATO obligations.

Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany was 20 billion euros short of reaching NATO’s target for ammunitions stockpiling, a defence source said.”

Ukraine needs war to end, but not by peace imposed on Russian terms – Baerbock, Ukrinform reports, citing German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. “The imposed ceasefire in the current conditions, when part of Ukraine is occupied and missiles and bombs continue to fly in, is not for peace in Ukraine, but for the subjugation of the Ukrainian state. That’s because the absence of war doesn’t automatically mean peace in freedom. An imposed peace is the opposite of a just peace. Because such a concept of peace, an imposed peace, recognizes the right of the strongest and thereby violates international law, the head of the German Foreign Ministry emphasized.

The minister emphasized the importance of continued support for Ukraine because we are also responsible for what we don’t do.

If we have to choose between right and wrong, between aggressor and victims, then we are on the side of the law and on the side of the people. Because we do not accept anything in Europe or anywhere else in the world where borders are being altered by force and where untold suffering is inflicted on millions of people. We do not accept the fact that Vladimir Putin wants to impose on us the logic of past centuries, according to which the right of the strongest is more important than international law, the diplomat said.

The head of the German diplomatic service also spoke about the need to invest more in integrated security against the background of the violation of international law by one of the world’s largest countries. During her speech, the top diplomat emphasized the issue of trust in Germany as a reliable partner.”

Over 20,000 applications submitted to Ukraine’s Offensive Guard, Ukrainska Pravda reports, citing Ukrinform and Ruslan Muzychuk, Spokesman of the National Guard. “In general, there are over 20,000 applications. […] According to Muzychuk, the next stage is the processing of applications. The selected candidates must collect the necessary documents, undergo psychological testing, and a medical examination after that. All these selection stages are necessary because we are forming assault brigades. Candidates with high motivation must get there, they must also meet other requirements to form such units, the spokesman of the National Guard emphasised.

On 2 February, Ihor Klymenko, Acting Minister of Internal Affairs, said that the Interior Ministry has begun forming eight assault brigades known as Offensive Guard to strengthen the Defence Forces and liberate the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.

On 3 February, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine reported that a recruitment campaign had started quite actively.

All military personnel who will become stormtroopers in the Offensive Guard are promised a list of social guarantees, including the opportunity to receive housing and treatment, as well as a higher education.”

 

Hans Petter Midttun: In the article “A NATO intervention in Ukraine would prevent nuclear disaster” I argued Nuclear blackmail has been a key to Russia’s ability to ensure that the US and NATO remain disengaged.

From a Russian perspective, this objective is today more crucial than ever.

Having succeeded in stopping Western defence support for the first 8 years of the war, Russia has been unable to stop the unprecedented defence support triggered by its unprovoked, unjustified, and vicious invasion. Still, it has succeeded in influencing the decision-making processes ensuring a slow and incremental delivery of Western-produced weapons. Even one year later, several crucial tools (e.g. combat aircraft and long-range weapons) remain off the table. NATO is deterred from conducting Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) in the Black Sea.

The threat of nuclear war has not least, succeeded in keeping military intervention off the table. While modern, western weapons have a massive impact on the battlefield, a NATO intervention would fundamentally change the military balance in favour of Ukraine.

The fear of a nuclear war has rendered NATO unable to act according to its past strategic concept: To stop ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security.

While acknowledging that the risk can never be zero in the presence of nuclear arms, I have argued that the risk of nuclear arms being employed is extremely small.

I do not buy into the Russian nuclear blackmail because of the following factors:

• Nuclear blackmail is very much in line with its Hybrid War strategy aimed at manipulating populations and decisions- and policymakers. Installing fear, the threats trigger inaction and the calls for diplomatic solutions at the cost of the victim of Russia’s aggressions. Nuclear Blackmail must be recognised for what it is: An assault against our collective cognitive space.
• President Putin is rational. All of his actions so far – including the “strategic blunder” to invade Ukraine in the first place can be explained within the framework of the Hybrid War strategy. According to Andrei V Kozyrev, former Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, his actions are from a Russian perspective rational. Horrific, but not irrational. Having painted himself into a corner of his own making does not make him less rational. Desperate? Yes. Irrational? No.
• A Russian defeat in Ukraine does not trigger a response according to the State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory is part of its efforts to utilise a “fait accompli” strategy it has found effective. Its declarations, however, do not turn parts of Ukraine, into Russia.
• Due to the risks and wider ramifications, the use of nuclear arms will always be a last resort. Despite suffering defeats on the battlefield, Russia still believes that victory is within reach as time is on its side as it has reverted to a long-term strategy. The Ukrainian economy is effectively being undermined. The West is still seen as the weak link and might still lose its new-found resolve as the “tsunami of ripple effects” from the war is taking hold, triggering demonstrations and strikes across Europe. Equally important, it has still more military options available. Belarus has still not been forced into action. Russia has yet to declare war and full mobilisation.
• Nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutual destruction are a part of a two-sided strategy. While Russia is threatening to use nuclear arms, it also knows that its use will trigger a military response. Putin has been told in no uncertain terms that a response would be forthcoming. According to Ben Hodges, “the Kremlin knows it would be impossible for the US to not respond if it uses a tactical nuke or chemical weapon in Ukraine. China, North Korea and Iran are watching. Pentagon will have provided a list of options to the President. Most are likely non-nuclear. All would be devastating for Russia.”
• Having been sanctioned and isolated by the West, Russia has turned to Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS). Since the use of nuclear arms will have a tremendous impact on global security and stability, it is hard to believe that Russia would proceed without consultation with China as a minimum. It is even harder to imagine China or India sanctioning even a tactical nuclear strike. On the contrary, India and China have voiced their concerns. Russia has lost the West and cannot run the risk of losing BRICS as well.
• Nations do not wage war for war’s sake but in pursuance of policy in which a better state of peace is the main objective. Hence, it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace one desire. A nuclear attack is in direct conflict with its long-term strategy. Facing huge demographic challenges, Russia needs Ukraine and Belarus to become a “Great Power”. It needs Ukraine’s defence industry. It needs a self-sustained Ukraine. It needs a well-functioning agricultural industry. It needs access to its huge mineral resources. It needs to secure a well-functioning country. The use of nuclear arms would, therefore, be extremely counterproductive.

1. Lastly, even if Russia chose to ignore all of the above, the use of tactical nuclear weapons defies its purpose unless it can explore the “military advantage” created by its blast. Russia lacks the capability to operate in the area devastated by its blast and push fresh forces through the gap in the frontline.

As my Ukrainian friends and colleagues would say: The Russians are highly immoral, but they are not stupid.

Russia’s hybrid war – the Russian assault on our collective cognitive space –  has been more successful in the USA and Western Europe than in Eastern and Central Europe, including Ukraine.

Despite the constant threats of nuclear war, the countries that know Russia the best – the ones that have suffered the consequences of the “Russian World” – have constantly called for NATO to act more resolutely.

The fact that 89% of Ukrainians signal that they want to keep fighting even after a Russian nuclear strike is indicative of a population far more resilient to Russian disinformation, propaganda and manipulation than most of their fellow Europeans. Despite that they would be suffering the biggest consequences of a hypothetical strike, they have the courage to tell the aggressor that it will change nothing.

We will not be intimidated. We will continue to fight, and we will be victorious.

It is time to mobilise the same kind of resolve in the West. For that to happen, however, the State of Heads and governments need to acknowledge the broader confrontation and start explaining what is at stake.

You could close this page. Or you could join our community and help us produce more materials like this.  We keep our reporting open and accessible to everyone because we believe in the power of free information. This is why our small, cost-effective team depends on the support of readers like you to bring deliver timely news, quality analysis, and on-the-ground reports about Russia's war against Ukraine and Ukraine's struggle to build a democratic society. A little bit goes a long way: for as little as the cost of one cup of coffee a month, you can help build bridges between Ukraine and the rest of the world, plus become a co-creator and vote for topics we should cover next. Become a patron or see other ways to support. Become a Patron!