Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine war, Russia doubles down on maximalist war aims, and Ukraine's brazen sabotage mission in Siberia.
Ukraine War Updates.
1) Russian assault on Avdiivka appears to stall as Russian casualties mount - Ukraine claims Russia lost 7,210 Russian troops in just past week.
Even if exaggerated by 2x, this would be an incredibly high casualty rate for Russia.
And there is little suggestion that the numbers are exaggerated - indirect evidence in the form of destroyed hardware point to the credibility of these numbers.
Indeed, the UK Ministry of Defense has confirmed that Ukrainian estimates of 1,000 daily average casualties (in November) for Russia being very “plausible’’.
This would imply that November 2023 was thus far the costliest single month for Russia in this war.
Perhaps reflecting these increasing casualty rates, Russian domestic mood seems to shift as well: for the very first time, more Russians now favor peace talks (48%) as opposed to continuation of the war (39%), while 43% believe that the economy will continue to worse as opposed to improve (21%).
2) Western allies scramble to reassure Ukraine.
After weeks of less than ideal news from the frontlines in Donbas, bickering from EU member states like Hungary, Slovakia, and even Poland, and with an ongoing uncertainty of US funding in 2024, Ukraine was in much need of rhetorical boost from the West.
Fortunately, this is exactly what happened - and a number of Western leaders lined up to provide a much needed display of staying power whilst attempting to dismiss suggestions of growing “Ukraine fatigue”.
Indeed, sometimes these dismissals were explicit - like when American Secretary of State rebutted the notion head on:
"Some are questioning whether the United States and other NATO allies should continue to stand with Ukraine as we enter the second winter of [Putin’s] brutality…But the answer here today atNATO is clear, and it’s unwavering. We must and we will continue to support ensuring that Russia’s war of aggression remains a strategic failure.”
NATO’s Secretary-General was also clear on Ukraine’s future in the alliance:
"Allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of NATO. At our meeting, we will agree on recommendations for Ukraine's priority reforms. As we continue to support Kyiv on its path to NATO membership.”Moreover, chancellor of Germany (the biggest military and financial backer of Ukraine in the EU), Olaf Scholz, emphasized (in his speech to Germany’s Bundestag) that the military and financial aid to Ukraine was of “existential importance” to Europe.
“We will continue with this support as long as it is necessary. This support is of existential importance. For Ukraine … but also for us in Europe. None of us want to imagine what even more serious consequences it would have for us if Putin won this war.”
There are three additional points to note about Scholz’s remarks:
1) Comments were delivered to the German Bundestag, and it is generally much harder to sell such a strong stance to the domestic legislature - these are not some ‘‘aspirational statements’’ made in an international forum.
2) Remarks were timed well - The EU has just announced an intention to more than quadruple its spending on training Ukrainian soldiers fighting Russia (with 34,000 already trained).
This was a great credibility boost for the German chancellor’s remarks.
3) Scholz framed aid to Ukraine in purely strategic, and strategically ‘‘existential” terms.
With attritional warfare setting in, and the long war ahead of us, the switch in rhetorical emphasis from morality/ethics and importance of preserving international rule-based order, to pure survival and security self-interest is welcome and in fact, rather belated.
Indeed, EU’s Commission President, Ursula Von Der Leyen (when also discussing importance of helping Ukraine) reiterated the shift in this emphasis:
“The strategic environment around us has fundamentally changed …. This creates a new kind of responsibility for Europe. I call it strategic responsibility.”
And if strategic sensibility was not enough, there was yet another welcome side benefit of funding Ukraine: a lot of money spent on funding Ukraine actually stays in the US and turns into investment into manufacturing capacity and local jobs.
The Biden admin circulated a data sheet which highlights welcome economic impact on the US industry and the wider manufacturing job market: “Pennsylvania has received $2.364 billion in investments to build munitions and tactical vehicles for Ukraine, the most of any state. Meanwhile, Arizona is a close second with $2.259 billion. Texas and Arkansas received $1.449 billion and $1.478 billion, respectively, while Florida got $1.011 billion.In total, the states have seen more than $27 billion”.
This is not only great news in the short-term, but it will furthermore reinvigorate hitherto slagging manufacturing bases - a crucial capacity needed for all other possible conflicts (especially with China).
3) Russia reaffirms maximalist war aims.
To all those urging Ukraine ‘‘to negotiate’’ (meaning give up territory and approve annexation) with Russia, foreign secretary Sergei Lavrov has a nice rebuttal: he sees no reason for Russia to change the objectives of its ‘‘special military operation”.
This is of course in line with what we have been highlighting for weeks now: Russia has sustained too many casualties for Putin to settle for only part of Donbas: he is convinced that he can invade more territory, and unfortunately, the help to Ukraine is not at a scale sufficient to disabuse him of this notion.
And if words were not enough: Putin issue a decree to increase the size of Russia’s military personnel to 1.32 million - nearly an additional 170k servicemen.
Practical and Political incentives behind the brazen sabotage missions from both sides.
While the assault on Avdiivka continues (and territory barely moves hand), two incidents have captured global attention:
1) The news of an assassination attempt/poisoning of Marianna Budanova - the wife of the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence (GUR) Kyrylo Budanov;
2) Ukrainian saboteurs blowing up two railway lines in Siberia (some 3,700 miles away from Western Ukraine) connecting Russia with China.
(side note: Russian security services have apparently already detained a dual Russian-Italian national for allegedly partaking in this sabotage).
Although these are wildly different types of operations with extremely distinct ethical implications (Russia targeted a civilian for being a wife of a spy chief. All previous Ukrainian assassination targets were actual military targets/those with military roles) there is something that is common to both missions: these acts were driven by both practical needs and political signaling incentives.
Russia’s desire to hit back at Kyrylo Budanov is understandable - he was behind a number of successful sabotage campaigns in Russia.
Russia tried to kill Budanov on at least 10 separate occasions.
But the manner of this latest attempt to go after Budanov is deliberately outrageous: either Russian operatives demonstrated a brazen disregard to the life of a civilian associated with Budanov, or they targeted her deliberately.
Either way, signaling is clear: Moscow is increasingly impatient with those at the leadership of an unyielding Ukrainian government.
Consequently, this brazen act incentivizes conflict-avoidance within the senior officials of the Ukrainian government.
But at this point, is this even possible?
Most certainly: unfortunately, plenty of Ukrainian officials were caught in shameful acts of corruption - profiting from outright theft of funds meant for soldiers/resources.
(side note: and Zelenskyy has demonstrated utmost diligence in investigating/removing these corrupt officials)
It goes without saying that if there are many unpatriotic officials happy to plunder the wartime military, then there will be many who will also be less fervent in their desire to prosecute this war.
Not every Ukrainian commander or MoD official will be as idealistic, relentless, and patriotic as Budanov - far from it (and this is normal and expected in all countries).
And at the time when the Western support over the long term remains uncertain, many will quietly whisper if it is worth risking their lives (and those of their family members) by turning themselves into prime Kremlin targets.
Moscow’s hope is that a number of Ukrainian officials will think along the following lines: if the war is at a stalemate, and we are not going to get resources needed to win, and will have to settle anyway, why delay the inevitable and risk our lives in the meantime?
As of now, there are no signs that this could work in any meaningful scale, but Kremlin is playing the long game and such brazen attacks add extra personal incentives for many senior officials to consider “alternative means of resolution’’
With that said, Ukraine is busy carrying out its own brazen sabotage missions.
Let us now unpack this in more detail.
Ukraine’s attack on Siberian rail links.
First and foremost, there is a very pragmatic reason for the attack: the targeted rail tracks (at the Itikit-Okushikan section and Severomuysky section) were on the Baikal-Amur Mainline and provided one of few ways for crucial cargo to travel from China and North Korea into Russia: aside from the economic headaches therefore, Ukraine has caused significant practical difficulties for Russians trying to cargo in North Korean 152mm artillery shells and grad rockets.
Given that North Korea is estimated to have thus far successfully supplied Russia with hundreds of thousands of shells per month, and that the further estimates were for this number to reach millions per month by 2024, even a 20-30% reduction in the volume of monthly supplies (caused by direct interferences and extra precautions enforced on the suppliers) will most definitely have a major impact on Russia’s frontline operations in Ukraine.
But aside from the obvious military impact, there are also a number of favorable strategic & political signaling effects at play here as well:
1) Demonstration of reach and depth.
Attacking thousands of miles deep inside Russia implies organizational prowess hitherto unseen from Ukraine.
Every region crossed, city entered, highway/road used raises the risk of capture by CCTVs (which can thereafter be reverse engineered) and an unwelcome encounter with law enforcement agencies.
That Ukraine is happy to undertake such risks stems in part due to practical utility of strikes, but the depth and reach displayed has further political implications:
a) It serves to weaken the appearance of ‘‘control’’ by the Kremlin and highlights how tenuous Putin’s grip over the vast Russian federation really is.
Similar effect was achieved when drones reached the Kremlin ahead of Russia’s victory parade in May.
b)It incentivizes regional defense mobilization - serving as a further excuse for local governors to gain resources of power and of brute military force: there is a legitimate cover after all - local governors and mayors have to ensure safety and security of their territories.
It would not be too surprising to see governors to start ‘‘subcontracting’’ additional security to local and newly formed “private security” organizations - which would then act as mini wagner-light type private militias.
It is important to remember that governors have strong incentives to arm up and prepare for the post-Putin order - however/whenever it may end.
(side note: this would be different from formal militias that can be created by the new Federal law as of July of 2023 - these give power to governors to create militias in times of war. But they would receive funding from the Federal government, and their autonomy would be in name only. This is essentially a de facto cost-sharing scheme concocted by the Putin regime: they want the local mini-oligarchs to cough up some cash and contribute to the war effort)
2) Signaling escalation dominance and the will to fight.
The narrative is one of a stalemate - where Russia is preparing for 2024, and Ukraine is yet to receive concrete long-term assurances of funding and supplies from the US and EU (all the aforementioned rhetoric is nice, but the corresponding action is lagging).
And at the time when frontlines are barely moving and Ukraine fatigue is setting in, striking deep inside Russia is a major exercise in strategic signaling: we are nowhere near done, and will undertake brazen risky attacks to derail your long-term logistical capabilities - you are not the only one preparing for a long war of attrition.
Beyond acting as a message to Russia, such signaling is also morale-boosting in the near term: Ukrainian citizens are reminded of victory tastes.
3) Signaling to the west: we are willing to damage relations with China.
It is important to remember that the attack on important railways connecting Russia with China, is in fact an affront to Beijing.
But Ukraine is willing to take this hit in relations with China: and the political gains that accrue in spite of this hit are in fact significant.
There is of course a direct effect of bringing home the reality of the Ukraine war to Beijing: if these sabotage missions continue, and trade routes/logistical nodes/transport routes connecting Russia and China continue, then the headaches associated by the Ukraine war will start to grow.
(side note: as of today, one could even argue that China benefits from a low-intensity war in Ukraine. The food/fertilizer price risks have now been contained and in return, Russia is turning into a vassal, leverage over EU and Washington is high (given influence over Putin) and there is a direct benefit of a discount on Russian gas and oil. The key caveat is however, that the war doesn’t escalate into a major conflict in Europe or that Putin gets defeated in a humiliating way. So in the long-term, the risks associated with this war are too high - but not so in the near-term)
And this will incentivize China to push for an end to this war.
(side note: of course the calculation is that with continuous Western support, China is deterred from ending this war by throwing its weight behind Russia, but rather by pushing Putin towards an unsavory compromise)
But there is also a signaling effect to the West: to government officials and political leaders, it is a reminder of Ukraine’s allegiance with the West over China.
To the general public, it is a reminder that Ukraine stands as a bulwark in opposition to the Russia - China axis.
This then strengthens the hands of prudent statesmen and politicians like Biden, Haley and Christie - who all (correctly) argue that the best way to contain China is to weaken Russia.
And in addition to causing enormous casualties to Russia, by additionally attacking railways that enable Russia - China trade, Ukraine is affirming this line of reasoning directly.
The importance of this symbolism cannot be understated: after all, the public sentiment in the West will remain as one of the most important variables in the equation that guarantees a continuous and long-lasting support for Ukraine.