Re-discussion of the situation in Ukraine: a speculation on the direction of the evolution of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Re-discussion of the situation in Ukraine: a speculation on the direction of the evolution of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Original Li Xiaopeng 1982 Dr. Li Xiaopeng 2022-03-04 02:39

Morning Mist / Repost

Before reading this article, it is recommended that readers first read the author's 2014 article "The Situation in Ukraine: Major U.S. Strategic Mistakes and Its Institutional Roots."

When the Russo-Ukrainian War broke out recently, my 2014 essay, "The Situation in Ukraine: Major U.S. Strategic Mistakes and Its Institutional Roots," suddenly caught fire again. Many friends urged me to analyze the latest situation. At the international strategic level, I have analyzed it more clearly in my 2014 article, and the basic conclusions are still applicable. This time, we will not talk much about grand strategy, but will talk about it from the perspective of the specific war situation of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

When the Russo-Ukrainian War broke out, many military and political big vs were very excited, claiming that the Russian army might occupy Kiev in 48 hours or even 24 hours to end the fighting, claiming that most of the military concepts were outdated. I probably belong to the group of people who are considered "outdated". My first reaction was: It seems that the Russian army should not fight like this.

First of all, the occupation of Kiev by force is not strategically clever. Russia's national strength and military strength have long been different from those of the past, and there is a huge gap with the United States, the economic strength is far behind, the level of weapons modernization is far behind, and the control of influence over global public opinion is also far worse. These three major gaps make it necessary to be highly cautious in foreign operations, to have the consciousness and ability to "walk a tightrope," not to strike in an all-round way like the United States, to see who is not pleasing to the eye, to act at any time, to be extremely accurate in morality and tactics, and not to show relatively obvious flaws. Directly sending heavy troops to attack Ukraine, an internationally recognized sovereign country, is very easy to fall into an extremely passive situation in terms of political opinion. In such a case, it would be particularly politically unfavourable if the pursuit of the occupation of Kiev by force, not to mention whether it was militarily easy to achieve.

Russia has two major demands for launching a war, one is to stop Ukraine from joining NATO and safeguard its national security; the other is to stop the Ukrainian army from creating a humanitarian disaster near the two independent republics in the eastern Ukraine region, which can be said to be "anti-Nazi". Let's first look at the second appeal, which is in line with the globally recognized "political correctness", and sending troops under this banner is easier to win the sympathy of global public opinion, and the pressure will be much less. But to realize this demand has nothing to do with the occupation of Kiev, and only needs to act in the two independent republics and their surrounding areas. The first demand – which is to halt NATO's eastward expansion – may be more important to Russia, but it is easier to win the sympathy of ordinary people than to stop a humanitarian catastrophe, and it is flexible – to what extent it must be safe, there is no universally accepted standard. In order to stop NATO's eastward expansion from directly sending troops to occupy the capital of a sovereign country, it is a bit of a "crossing the line.". Previous airstrikes in Georgia, military assistance to the Syrian government, all of this is fine, but a military occupation of a sovereign state is another matter. I believe that the greatest morally plausible scope of the Russian invasion of Ukraine should be the eastern Ukraine region, excluding Kiev. As long as the capital of Ukraine is not occupied, how Russia fights in the east of Ukraine, everyone can reluctantly agree with the statement that it is "special military operations". Once the Ukrainian capital is attacked, it is difficult to say what a special military operation is, which will be judged by most people to be a war of aggression.

Although Ukraine has belonged to the same country as Russia for a long time in history, its national consciousness of independence has existed for a long time, and the time of independent statehood has been long. Russian troops in much of Ukraine are considered foreign invasions. The occupation of Kiev is a serious violation of the national consciousness of the Ukrainian state and will greatly arouse the resistance of the Ukrainian people. Street fighting during the occupation can be very tragic, and if the Russian army loses patience and kills, it will cause humanitarian disasters. This would put Russia in an extremely passive position morally.

The occupation of Kiev was politically unfavorable and tactically not the best option.

Tactically, Russia does not necessarily need to occupy Kiev if it is to achieve its goal of maintaining national security and halting the humanitarian catastrophe. Kiev's tactical position as a command center must be "unplugged." The destruction of Kiev's military command system through missiles, electronic warfare, etc. is necessary, while the occupation of ground forces is not unnecessary.

So, on the first day of the war, when I learned that the Russians had begun to attack Kiev and that the paratroopers were trying to control the Antonov airfield in Kiev, I felt that the problem was relatively big. This is not a wise move. Russia's best strategy should be limited to high-precision targeted killing or sabotage of the Kiev military command system, and the main force will detour from the north and south directions of East Ukraine, cut off the escape route of the main force of Ukraine to suppress the independence of the two republics of East Ukraine, and completely annihilate the main force of the Ukrainian army in a "dumpling". At the same time, air supremacy was seized and military installations in military bases in other parts of Ukraine were destroyed. In this way, Ukraine's main fresh forces were annihilated, the main military facilities were destroyed, and the goal of "demilitarizing" Ukraine was effectively accomplished.

After Ukraine was "physically demilitarized", the Russian military could effectively control the eastern Ukrainian region for a long time. Here the industry is developed, the products are abundant, the army is convenient and convenient, and the Russian-speaking population accounts for the majority, it is relatively easy to establish a security army or police force composed of locals, the possibility of a long-term guerrilla war is unlikely, the Russian army can control the situation by choosing several key strategic positions here, the cost of stationing is very low, and it may even be profitable. In Kiev and Western Ukraine, air strikes can be used at any time to stop it from rebuilding military bases and military facilities and forcing it to be "demilitarized" for a long time. In this way, without any agreement with the current Ukrainian government, let alone the consent of any third party, Russia's two major demands – safeguarding national security and eliminating the humanitarian catastrophe in the areas inhabited by ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine – can be met. Crimea's water supply and security problems are, of course, even less problematic.

This is Russia's "best strategy" to solve the Ukrainian problem. In the whole process, Russia can fully grasp the initiative, and even be said to be invincible. Next, it is to gradually promote the formation of a pro-Russian regime in the eastern Ukrainian region, and when this regime is completed, the Russian army can mostly retreat back to China, leaving only a few data points.

On the other hand, if Kiev is occupied, the process will be difficult, morally passive, and even after the occupation, what to do will be a big problem. It is obviously not possible to withdraw troops without an agreement, and long-term occupation is extremely costly. It's not a good idea to look at it.

This truth is not completely unexpected by the Russian military command. But it may not be very thoughtful. In my personal opinion, when they made plans to attack Kiev, they should have a certain speculative mentality. The strategic focus is on the encirclement of eastern Ukraine, and this should be very clear to the Russian side. But they may (mistakenly) think that there is a possibility of a rapid Ukrainian surrender: a small number of troops in Kiev to carry out a lightning raid, to create the illusion of blossoming in the major Ukrainian cities, even on the westernmost coast of Osad began to land a strong offensive, and then with the main force from the north and south to break into eastern Ukraine. This momentum could quickly collapse the will of the Ukrainian government and army to resist, with the result that President Zelenskiy and most of the senior government officials fled, and the Russian army quickly occupied Kiev. As long as the president flees, the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government will be seriously shaken, and the interim government can be organized with officials who remain willing to cooperate with the Russian side, and the political problems can be quickly resolved.

Since it is possible to achieve this goal with only a small number of troops, and basically does not affect the operation of the main force in Eastern Ukraine, why not gamble? Anyway, the loss of gambling will not be very large.

So, the Russian army had Plan A and Plan B from the beginning. Plan A is a lightning assault, so that the opponent's will to resist collapses, and quickly wins a complete victory; if Plan A is frustrated, it will turn to Plan B, that is, to shrink the attack range, and the main force will continue to operate in Dongwu, steadily and gradually advancing.

Thus, on the first day of the war, the most desirable news for the Russian side was zelenskiy to take refuge abroad. As soon as Zelenskiy went abroad, everything else would be easy to do.

But the Russian high command clearly underestimated the Ukrainian side's readiness and will to resist. After all, Biden has long claimed that the Russian army is about to invade Ukraine, and the Ukrainian side should have known and prepared for it long before Biden spoke publicly. The probability of scaring Ukraine with blitzkrieg is low.

What was particularly unexpected by the Russian side was president Zelenskiy's performance. Although he is a president who comes from a comedian background, has no previous political experience, and has performed badly in the presidency. But in times of crisis, he persevered. Countless countries offered him asylum, but not only did he not flee, but he also publicly went to the streets of Kiev to shoot videos and take an extremely tough attitude against the Russian attack.

Zelenskiy did not run, and the Russian side of Plan A was very passive. The small unit of troops parachuting into Thetonov airfield was crushed, and the multi-point blossom did not frighten the Ukrainian army, but was defeated in many places due to the very small number of troops in the lightning raid.

This situation is not what the Russians want to see, but it is not beyond the scope of Plan B. These failures are not good in public opinion, and the actual losses are not large. For the sake of face, the Russian army continued to pretend to attack Kiev, but in fact it had changed to a fixed-point attack plan against the Kiev military command center, concentrating more main forces on the battlefield of eastern Ukraine. This strategy was undoubtedly correct, and soon several key major cities in Eastern Ukraine were conquered, and the main commanders of Eastern Uzbekistan were killed, and the total annihilation of the Eastern Ukrainian government army should be just around the corner.

From Plan A to Plan B, the Russian attack on Kiev was a "feint", Plan A was hoping to scare Zelenskiy away, and Plan B was to save face while maintaining sufficient pressure on the Ukrainian government. The battlefield of the decisive battle between the two sides has always been in eastern Ukraine rather than Kiev. And the victory and defeat of this decisive battle have been divided, and there is no suspense. After the main force of Eastern Ukraine is annihilated, the war will enter the second stage, and the Russian army will steadily advance from east to west, continue to occupy and control the eastern Ukrainian region in an all-round way, and strengthen the attack on the remaining Ukrainian troops and military facilities. The "physical demilitarization" of Ukraine was finally completed.

The third stage is to carry out political power building in Eastern Ukraine. Some smaller republics that have declared independence may merge into an eastern Ukrainian state, for example, through referendums. The Dnieper River is the natural military dividing line, and this line will become the famous historical line between the great powers to tear a small country into two countries, just like the 38th Line of North Korea and the Berlin Wall in Germany. If there is an armistice between the two sides, it will be reached in the third phase.

In the second and third stages, the Russian army has sufficient strength to take Kiev, and may also play a few more "feint attacks". But Kiev should never be taken seriously and comprehensively. Taking Kiev does not mean the fall of the Ukrainian government, nor does it mean that the Ukrainian government will yield to a demilitarization agreement with Russia. SEU will continue to rely on European and American support to confront Russia, an outcome that will not change with russia's occupation or non-occupation of Kiev. Once Russia occupies Kiev, it faces the question of how to exit. The russian army spent one more day in Kiev, and Europe and the United States had one more day of righteous superiority. The Ukrainian government grits its teeth and does not sign the agreement, and the Russian military will not be able to exit with dignity. With the support of Europe and the United States behind it, it is basically impossible for the Ukrainian government to publicly abandon the two republics of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by signing a pledge. Zelenskiy may have fled to Siu to continue organizing resistance, or he could have stayed to await the arrest of the Russians. As long as he does not run out of Ukraine, Russia will not be able to form a new Ukrainian government. If he is killed or arrested, Ukraine's national sentiment will be ignited, and the Russian army may be able to suppress the armed resistance, but it will become completely impossible to establish a pro-Russian government by voting, and it will be difficult to even find a decent Ukrainian politician to become a puppet.

In short, as long as Russia does not intend to completely annex Ukraine, the occupation of Kiev will not be a good choice. If we really want to annex Ukraine, I am afraid that even China will clearly oppose it, and Russia will be completely isolated internationally, which is by no means an option for Russia.

Since the Dnieper River passes through the city of Kiev, will the Russians occupy the eastern part of Kiev and leave it to the Ukrainian government? There is still a possibility. But I still think that not even occupying the eastern urban area is a better choice. The construction of some military positions on the outskirts of Kiev and the maintenance of deterrence against Kiev, so that the Ukrainian government does not dare to act rashly, nor is it reluctant to flee from Kiev, which can better force them to sign an armistice agreement and guarantee its implementation. As long as Kiev is not captured, Russia's "special military operation" will always make sense morally and will be easier to win the support of the vast number of third world countries, including China. In the long run, it is a more favorable choice to deal a heavy blow to the hegemonic policy of the United States, consolidate Sino-Russian strategic cooperation, and protect Russia's national security.

The United States has gone too far in NATO's eastward expansion, only to encounter a fierce counterattack from Russia, and there is no way but to sanction and condemn, and it is disgraced. The thing it most wants to see now is for the Russians to move in and try to occupy or control all of Ukraine. If Russia does this, it will be as excessive as NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine. By burning the flames of war into the heart of Europe and seriously threatening the security of countries such as Germany, the relations between Europe and Russia will become completely irreparable. In the current situation, Germany and France have a high tone of sanctions against Russia, but in fact they are not very seriously implemented, and many things are not triggered. As long as the Russian military stops at the outskirts of Kiev and stops at the Dnieper, they can accept the reality, accept that Russia's military actions are only to stop the humanitarian disaster and gain a basic sense of security, and will find a way to gradually resume economic and trade cooperation with Russia, and will not completely fall to the United States; on the contrary, it will not only further strengthen sanctions, but also increase their own military expenditure on a large scale for their own security, and engage in an arms race with Russia for a long time. China could be forced to choose sides between Europe and Russia, with the only beneficiary being the United States. This is something that the Chinese side absolutely does not want to see, and I believe that the mainland government will certainly take appropriate measures to convey information to the Russian side through appropriate channels and methods, so that the Russian military can stop at an appropriate time. Putin is a rational politician, and he must be able to read our message.

The essence of political and military struggle is to grasp the degree of goodness. The United States has gone too far on the issue of NATO's eastward expansion, crossed the necessary boundaries, and will eventually encounter a fierce counterattack from Russia, making itself passive in terms of international grand strategy. That's the judgment I made in that 2014 article. Now Russia's counterattack must also be well grasped - the degree of national security is not to cross the Dnieper River, not to seize Kiev by force; the degree to stop the humanitarian disaster in Eastern Ukraine is to protect civilians and avoid falling into the quagmire of urban street warfare and guerrilla warfare. Only in this way can its two major demands be truly satisfied, without encountering a counterattack from the United States. At present, in addition to a little bit of a small gamble at the beginning of the war, the Russian decision-making level is still sober and calm. Putin's announcement at the outset that he would not occupy Ukraine, and his public demand that nearby civilians stay away before striking military targets in big cities, are all good practices. Because of this, I believe that the russian army will not occupy Kiev is a high probability event, the stalemate of the Russo-Ukrainian war will not be broken soon, the peace agreement is far away, and it is inevitable that Ukraine will actually split into two countries and maintain a cold war confrontation for a long time. If the Russian side can play cards according to this routine, it will be a real blessing for Russia, For China, and for the whole world.

As for the economic sanctions imposed by the United States, with neither China nor India participating and Europe's wavering attitude, it is simply irrelevant to Russia, and it has basically no impact on the war situation in Ukraine, and there is no need for too much analysis.

-----------------------

Author: Dr. Li Xiaopeng, author of "Economic Analysis of China's Rise" and "From the Yellow River Civilization to the Belt and Road".

Source: 2022-03-04 WeChat public account Dr. Li Xiaopeng

ID：lixiaopengboshi

【Statement】This article is forwarded and shared, and the source has been indicated. Does not represent that the platform is for or against the views of the original author, and the literary responsibility and copyright belong to the original author. This article is reproduced for the purpose of transmitting more information, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete.