Author: Cajun Exile

  • You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

    You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V

    If We’re Gonna Lose…Can We Lose in August?

    In 1994 the Yeltsin government believed that fighting and winning the war in Chechnya was necessary for their political survival. That defeat in Chechnya would doom them in the next election or result in a coup before the 1996 ever arrived. They were probably right, but the political death came much slower than anyone expected.

    Faced with a deeply unpopular war and extreme economic challenges, Yeltsin and his advisors knew they had severe political headwinds to over come. That the war which was lost in all but the declaration, had not been declared lost yet. There was a narrow path to political survival if they acted with extreme care.

    The Yeltsin campaign came out early and broke nearly every election law in the book in its efforts to remain in power.  Yeltsin signed a decree in 1996 to abolish conscription in Russia by the year 2000, and create an all-volunteer, professional force without consulting with his discredited Minister of Defence Pavel Grachev. This gave Russian mothers and fathers the prospect of a future where their sons would not be involuntarily committed to disastrous and unpopular wars which certainly helped Yetlsin while his principle opponents in 1996 offered only the same involuntary military service that was terribly unpopular.

    The Clinton Administration pulled every lever of American soft power at its disposal to prop up Yeltsin. Yeltsin was also assisted by politically weak opponents, except perhaps Alexander Lebed whose popularity grew immediately with more national exposure in 1996 election. The fact the Chechen war was not lost before June 16, 1996 the date the first round of the presidential election or by July 3, 1996 the date for the second round of the presidential election, was probably single most important factor that determined Yeltsin remained in power. In Yeltsin’s runoff with the weak, “lets return to communism” candidate Gennady Zyuganov, Yeltsin won only 54.4% of the vote.

    The First Chechen War was officially lost on August 31, 1996 exactly 59 days after Yeltsin won the 2nd round runoff.

    Economic fallout…Solutions Will Come Too Late..

    The Yeltsin administration began immediate plans for building a pipeline around Chechnya through Dagestan so so they could get oil export flowing independent of what might happen in Chechnya. This Chechenya- bypass loop project would not be complete before Yeltsin presidency was ended and a new war in Chechnya was started by a new Russian president promising vengeance for Russian honor and the Russian dead…a political unknown at the time…one Vladimir Putin. In the meantime, Russia had to pay confiscatory transit fees for the oil in the pipelines it built to the enemy it just fought and lost as war to. These transit fees were paid in hard currency, that same hard currency Russia desperately needed to stabilize and modernize its economy. As unwelcome as paying transit fees where to Russia, it was the inability of an independent Chechnya to protect the pipeline that hurt revenue most significantly. Guerrillas with no opportunities but further violence constantly disrupted the oil flow. Russia’s economy suffered.

    Reform the Army…by Making a Mess of Reforming the Army Due to Palace Intrigue…

    Two weeks after the presidential runoff election which secured Yeltsin’s victory, Yeltsin fired Defense Minister Pavel Grachev who was the primary architect of the First Chechen War. Prior to that, Grachev was  involved in the Soviet coup attempt of 1991 yet managed to retain power as he transitioned from the Soviet Union’s last Defense Minister to become the Russian Federation’s first defense Minister. Grachev was also involved in the  Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 (Coup of 1993), where he sided with Yeltsin. As Russian armor and infantry were dying in the Dec 31, 1994 assault in Grozny that was meant capture the capital and win the war…in effect a “D-Day” and “Capture of Berlin” operation all rolled into one, Grachev was drunk all day celebrating his birthday.

    Grachev had remarked recently that only an “incompetent commander” would order tanks into the streets of central Grozny, where they would be vulnerable to rocket launchers, grenades, even Molotov cocktails. Yet at the end of December he did it. 

    “Why It All Went So Very Wrong” by bruce W. Nelan

    “In Yeltsin’s address to Parliament in February, 1995, he admitted that “reforms in the armed forces have not proceeded satisfactorily” and promised that he would take decisive measures in 1995 to reorganize the army and other forces. On February 23, 1995, after a wreath-laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier, Yeltsin said “the army has begun to fall to pieces,” precisely because “we have been late in introducing reforms.”

    A year passed and nothing happened. In February, 1996, after a meeting of the Russian Security Council, it was announced that Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin must put forward a plan for military reform within ten days. When I called the Defense Ministry to find out whether they were working around the clock to accomplish this on time, the officers there replied that they had heard the announcement, but that Grachev had gone to ex-Yugoslavia, his first deputy Andrei Kokoshin had a cold, and if Chernomyrdin was charged with reforming the army in ten days, that was his problem.

    Clearly, the military had long since stopped taking Yeltsin’s “imminent army reform” pronouncements seriously.” – Pavel Felgenhauer, RUSSIAN MILITARY REFORM: TEN YEARS OF FAILURE

    The next Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation was placeholder, Mikhail Kolesnikov. Kolesnikov who was appointed acting Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation. Kolesnikov could make none of the institutional changes of the army that were required as everyone knew his position was temporary. As such, Kolesnikov appointment as acting Minister of Defence further reflects the disarray of the Yeltsin Administration at the time and characteristic of Russia’s inability to make the necessary changes to modernize and reform the army.

    The next Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation was Igor Rodionov who was selected as much for his his political reliability as for his declared willingness to reform the armed forces. Rodionov proved to be perhaps the worst possible choice as Minister of Defense. Instead of advocating reform of the Russian military, Rodionov came to the conclusion that it was Russian society that needed be reformed in order to support the Russian army’s needs as constituted. The army “tail” was to wag society’s “dog”.

    “It is … impermissible to solve society’s … problems at the cost of lowering the state’s main attribute, the army”

    Igor Rodionov,
    Manoeuvring with the Military, 1997

    An important reform proposed by Rodionov was the specific call for the creation of a professional NCO corps in the Armed Forces. This NCO reform was critically important for the Russian army where the lack of a professional Russian Army NCO corps is seen as one of its greatest weaknesses relative to western armies. As of April 2022 in its Ukrainian War, the Russian Army still does not have a professional NCO corps.

    Rodionov’s advocation of a “back to the future” soviet model for the Russian military was politically and economically impossible and doomed any positive reforms he advocated. In May 1997 Rodionov was fired. The Russian Federation had now three Ministers of Defence in less than a year at a time when the Russian military desperately needed reform. The Russian army, most desperate in need of reform, was just as broken as it was when any of the three assumed the office and it was about to get worse for the army in particular.

    The next Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation was Igor Sergeyev. Sergeyev was appointed Minister of Defense in May of 1997. Unlike his predecessor, Sergeyev accepted that reform of the military must fit within the limited budget offered by civilian political leadership. Because of his conformance to the political and economic realties of the time, Sergeyev promoted to Marshal of the Russian Federation on November 21, 1997. Sergeyev to this day (April 10, 2022) remains the only Russian military officer to achieve the rank of Marshal of the Russian Federation.

    Sergeyev spent nearly all of his career in the Strategic Rocket Forces and it was here that Sergeyev focused the lion share of funding and readiness. The Russian Space Forces were disbanded and absorbed into the Strategic Rocket Forces. Strategic Rocket Forces where to be the bulwark of Russian military powers they represented the biggest “bang for the buck”.

    In December 1997, Sergeyev made the bold move of abolishing Russian Ground Forces Headquarters. In the words of Russian military expert, Michael Orr, the disbandment was a “military nonsense..justifiable only in terms of internal politics within the Ministry of Defence”. This was a severe blow, not just to the funding of the Russian army, but to the moral of the entire Russian Army. Suddenly…on the Russian Military organizational chart, the Russian Army was a subordinate force to the Russian Navy. Russian Air Force and Strategic Rocket Forces.

    Authors Note: Disbandment of the Army seems incredibly shortsighted today, but it was not unique to Sergeyev. Similar thinking occurred in the US a decade earlier at the initial end of the Cold War as best represented in the December 11, 1989 article in the publication U.S. News & World Report entitled “Does America Need an Army?” This was an extremely wide read article that the US Army was taken very seriously as it is quoted in numbers publications at the time and since. In a nutshell, the article argues that with the Navy, Air Force and US Marines the USA has all the military power it needs. If the ground combat it too big a problem for the Marines, use strategic bombing…if that doesn’t work, nuke ’em. Fortunately for America, the buzz in political and military circles from this idea never gained traction real traction. Less than three years later the Gulf War would prove how valuable the US Army was with the US Army’s AirLand Battle doctrine which was the critical factor in the stunning victory with extremely low American losses that an “US Armly-less” military force could have never delivered

    Yeltsin’s inadvertent savior from assassination in 1991, political rival and third place finisher in the 1996 election, VDV Afghan War hero, former commanding General of the 14th Guards Army in Transnistria Alexander Lebed became became Secretary of the Security Council in the Yeltsin administration on June 18, 1996. A deal was cut with Lebed when it became obvious that his late surge in the polls were not going to be enough to catupult him into second place. Lebed‘ support for Yeltsin was a factor in carrying a weak Yeltsin over the finish line in the 1996 election.

    Lebed‘s first assignent was to negotiate an end to the First Chechen War which he accomplished in a few weeks. Lebed‘s ending of the First Chechen War brought him into direct conflict with Minister of Internal Affairs Army General Anatoly Kulikov and his faction who were responsible for running the war at that point. Lebed then clashed with the Yeltsin administration’s power broker and presidential chief of staff Anatoly Chubais. In the conflict with Chubais, Lebed was most guilty of simply being popular. Lebed was popular among Russian nationalists for how he handled the Transnistria situation. Lebed was popular among much of the military for his war hero status and command credentials. Lebed was popular among democrats for not-assassinating Yeltsin. Lebed was popular for being perceived as fair, honest and a man who got quickly results…three traits that seemed impossible to find in Russian post-Soviet politics. Lebed‘s popularity grew during the election and if the election season in Russia were a few weeks longer, he could have unseated a weak and fading Yeltsin. Lebed was seen by many as the next president of Russia and that was a problem for Chubais who intended to be president of Russia himself in 2000.

    Lebed argued in the Yeltsin administration that Russian soldiers needed more pay and more support as they exited the military or they would revolt. Chubais accused Lebed of agitating the emotions of soldiers with the intent of inciting a coup. When push came to shove, Lebed had all ready accomplished the two things what was most useful to the Yeltsin administration. Lebed had help Yetlsin survive the 1996 runoff and he ended the war. On October 17, 1996, les than 5 months after assuming the position of Secretary of the Security Council Lebed was fired. The Russian soldiery lost their greatest advocate in government. Moral dropped even lower.

    Authors Note: Lebed went on to be governor of the largest region in Russia despite being an outsider. Mysteriously Lebed chose not to run as for president in 2000 leaving Vladimir Putin unopposed as the “unlikely” incumbent in the 2000 election. Always considered a threat to Putin, Lebed died in a helicopter crash in 2002 that is considered by some to be suspicious.. Lebed‘s story is a fascinating one which deserves more detail than can be provided in this series.

    The Bitter Pill Sticks in the Throat…

    Under Minister of Defence Sergeyev, the Russian military was reduced from from 1.8 million in 1997 to 1.2 million by January 1999. The Russian Army bore the brunt of these cuts for two reasons. The first reason being that the Russian Army comprised the largest personnel authorization so a 1/3 cut to personal would fall disproportionately on the army. The second determining factor was based on performance. The performance of the Russian Army in Chechnya was abysmal. Yet the cuts to the Army were not evenly distributed. There was some attempt to link cuts to accountability.

    Motorized rifle and tank divisions and brigades, the backbone of the Russian Army since the glory days of the 1940s, dramatically underperformed expectations and as such bore the brunt of the cuts. An almost infinitesimal bright spot was that the elite “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division were no longer going to be the only combat ready heavy divisions (at least on paper) in the Russian Army.

    Sergeyev announced in August 1998 that there would be six divisions and four brigades elevated to the same standard as the elite “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division. The lack of quality personnel, even in these favored units, continued to be a problem exacerbated by a lack of fuel for training and a shortage of well-trained junior officers prevented all six divisions and four brigades from having uniform levels of combat effectiveness. But now there were all least there was no more than two combat capable heavy divisions in the Russian army. The “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division remained elite divisions in the Russian army, but for the first time in at least a decade these units were no longer unique.

    The VDV short for Vozdushno-desantnye voyska are the Russian Airborne Forces had long been considered elite forces in the Soviet Army. A proud organization, the VDV relish in their unique status as confirmed by the fact that they have their own holiday, August 2, Paratroopers’ Day celebrates the birth of the Soviet Airborne and is celebrated throughout Russian and in many former countries of the Soviet Union. VDV units tended to attract the most highest performing conscripts and had a larger cadre (although small) of “contract” soldiers (read professional soldiers) relative to the rest of the Russian army.

    To provide historical context, the VDV led the initial successes in the invasion of Afghanistan as most of the 700 covert troops, along with KBG and GRU special forces troops. On December 27, 1979 they effectively decapitated the Afghan government in less than two days. The 103rd Guards ‘Vitebsk’ Airborne Division led the way for the main force invasion when they landed at Bagram airport on the morning of December 27, 1979. Soviet Airborne troops were withdrawn from the country after the Afghan government was replaced with one compliant to the Soviet Union, The VDV existed to make war, not keep the peace and the war fighting was done.

    The VDV had to be reintroduced as the occupation of Afghanistan failed. Regarded as one of the few Soviet forces to have fought bravely and effectively against the Afghan mujahideen the entire war, their helicopter borne operations suffered greatly with the introduction of American Stinger missiles to the conflict. Despite these hardships they were soldiers who had a reputation for achieving good results in Afghanistan when most of the Russian Army proved ineffective.

    VDV forces were so highly regarded before the First Chechen War that Pavel Grachev publicly boasted that he could defeat the Chechen separatist “in a couple of hours with a single airborne regiment”. The reality pf Chechnya was significantly different than expected. The VDV were considered to have underperformed significantly in Chechnya and as such were forced to undergo a reduction in force.

    In spite of this “black eye from the First Chechen War, Russian VDV forces were considered elite forces and the most capable, light infantry/light armored troops that the Russian Army had at its disposal in any numbers. This perception holds true in 2022.

    Russian Naval Infantry, referred to in the West as Russian Marines, were completely spared any cuts coming out of the First Chechen War. A small force to begin with, they were judged to have “performed competently” in the First Chechen War which meant they dramatically over performed relative to the rest of the deployed force. Russian Naval Infantry are considered elite forces in the 1990s and that reputation carries forward into 2022.

    When the Death You Predicted Finally Knocks on the Door…

    On August 9, 1999, Vladimir Putin was appointed (not elected) as one of three first deputy prime ministers.

    On August 16th, the State Duma approved Vladimir Putin‘s appointment (not election) as prime minister making him Russia’s fifth prime minister in fewer than eighteen months. On his appointment, few expected Putin, as a virtual unknown to the general public, to last any longer than his predecessors. Putin was initially regarded as a Yeltsin loyalist. But events were soon to prove a different game was afoot.

    In September 1999 three apartment building in Moscow were blown up killing 300 people and injuring 1000. Rumors had it that it was not Chechens but the FSB (rebranded KGB) and it is alleged that FSB officers were actually caught by the Moscow police planting of some of the bombs.

    As a result of these attacks, by December 1999 the Second Chechen War was in full swing. Yeltsin was forced to face the fate he has so narrowly avoided in 1996.

    A tired, defeated and broken man, Yeltsin surprised the nation by resigning in his Traditional New Years address on December 31, 1999.

    Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, former head of the KGB successor organization (FSB ) in 1998, an unknown the Russian public and a man never elected to any office in his life, assumed the office of President on Russia on Jan 1, 2021.

    Unknown to the public, Putin did everything he could to stack the deck in his favor. Long time presidential aspirant Anatoly Chubais mysteriously chose not to run for president in 2000 despite planning to do so for more than three years. Extremely popular Alexander Lebed chose not to run for president in 2000 surprising many pundits. Instead Lebed chose self-exile as Governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai (read Siberia). The smoothest possible onramp was paved for Putin’s 2000 election as possible, all he had to do was beat the same tired old communist who lost to Yetlsin in 1996 and some free market economist smart guy almost everyone in Russians had never heard of.

    This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Vladimir_Putin_taking_the_Presidential_Oath_7_May_2000-1024x768.jpg
    New Russian President Vladimir Putin takes the presidential oath on the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Moscow’s Kremlin Palace on May 7, 2000. Former president Boris Yeltsin looks on during the inauguration ceremony after having resigned on December 31

    Conclusion

    Putin and his allies had smoothed the way for a Putin victory in every way possible 2000 by arranging the circumstances for him to run as an incumbent instead of a candidate. With a campaign of image over substance that some went so far to say that Putin intentional assumed the popular “tough guy” image of self-exiled Lebed that had captivated the minds of the Russian public. Putin won ihis first ever election for anything in 2000 with only 52% of the vote and promised to do better next time.

    But as Yeltsin discovered the hard way, winning the presidency was one thing, surviving the presidency was another thing altogether. In order for Putin to survive, he was going to have to win in Chechnya with an army that essentially had the same problems (with few exceptions) as the army that was so catastrophically defeated in Chechnya just a few years before.

    We will delve into that challenge in The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part VI, Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results…

    Series Articles:

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Problem with the Donbas, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

  • What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    In Part III of the series we established that post-soviet Russia had a fragile government, a declining population, economic disruption and a dependency (both real and imagined) on elite military units propping up the government in 1991 and 1993. What Russia needed was an extended period of peace and economic recovery. Time to recover from the war in Afghanistan. Time to recover from the turmoil of post-Soviet economic changes. Post-Soviet Russia would get neither.

    Self Determination is a Contagious Disease

    Self-determination was not only a notion for Soviet tank commanders of Russian decent. Self-determination also caught on with other peoples within Russia as well. Unsurprisingly many of these leaders had backgrounds in the Soviet military as well.

    In 1991, newly elected ex-Soviet Air Force general Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev, backed by the newly formed Chechen National Congress, pushed for recognition of Chechnya as a separate nation. This was opposed by Russian Federation which argued that Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union as had Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia Armenia, Azerbaijan and Armenia , but had always been part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and as such had no rights under the Soviet constitution to secede.

    Before 1991 ended, the Soviet Union collapsed and whatever the Soviet constitution had to say on the matter of Chechen secession was meaningless.

    In October of 1993,  Boris Yeltsin survived a coup by Russian hardliners that all but shredded the Russian constitution in the process by dissolving the Congress of People’s Deputies of Russia and dismissing the Vice President of Russia without the constitutional authority to do so.

    Political power was held by the force of two Russian elite guards divisions. There was no moral claim to Russian power in 1993. Russian power was backed by the ground elite Russian troops stood on.

    Dudayev and the Chechen nationalists thought to themselves, nice elite tank units you have there…but they are awfully far from my house.

    Let the Chechen People Go!

    The Yeltsin government could have simply let Chechnya secede from the Russian Federation. Had they known the disaster that was to befall them they would have. But as the great philosopher Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”. It was impossible for the Yeltsin government to let Chechnya go in 1994 for reasons both political and economic.

    “You are only as weak as you prove yourself to be…”

    The political impossibility of letting Chechnya secede from the Russian Federation was that the forces behind the 1991 and 1993 coup attempts were still very much a factor. Russian nationalist and pro-soviet revanchists seethed at the perceived (and real) weakness of the new Russian Federation. They were a looming threat over the Yeltsin government in 1994. The political calculus of the Yeltsin government resulted n the assessment that Chechen independence would be politically “unsurvivable,” The Yeltsin government determined they could not prove to be weak on Chechnya.

    A War for Oil if There Ever Was One…

    In 1994 Chechnya sat across major pipelines that brought Russian oil and gas to western markets. The first oil pipelines that ran through Chechnya was the Grozny–Tuapse oil pipeline built in 1928. In 1928 this which was important to the to bring hard currency to the economically weak Soviet Union which was attempting to transform itself fro an agrarian serf economy to a modern, 20th century industrial economy. By the end of the Soviet Union there were two oil pipelines (green), one gas pipeline (red) and one oil products pipeline (blue) transiting Grozny, the capital of Chechnya.

    Source:
    Russia – Former Soviet Union Pipelines map
    – Crude Oil (petroleum) pipelines – Natural Gas pipelines – Products pipelines

    These pipelines were essential for Russia to generate maximum profit from the petroleum resource rich Caspian Sea basin. Russia needed to be aggressive with managing their production and delivery cost as they were competing on the world market with other oil producers. Some of whom were extremely efficient oil producers. Hard currency poor, Russia needed the most cost efficient route to market and that route ran through Chechnya.

    Ready! (no!), Set! (I guess…), War! (war it is)

    In 1994 Russia was totally unprepared for war. The economic disruption in Russia was severe. The Russian army was underfunded and relied on conscription as its main source of manpower. One thing that was not going to happen was that most of the very best of the Russian army was ever going anywhere near Chechnya. The elite “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and most of the Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division were going to have to sit this war out. Because of politically unstably of the Russian government, the very best of the Russian Army would watch this war from the sidelines. Right handed Russia was going to fight this war with its right hand tied behind its back.

    Russian planners tried to help. If the elite “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and most of the Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division could not fight in this war, at least the troops fighting in Chechnya would be equipped the same as they were. The latest and greatest tanks in the Russian arsenal, the same type used by the elite “Taman Guards” 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division, were pulled out of storage and handed to the “lesser” units as they deployed to Chechnya.

    The Russian military would go to war with overwhelming firepower advantages equipped with the latest tanks, and with significant support from the Russian Air Force. Chechnya was a tiny nation of less than 1.2 million people and 6,680 mi (smaller than New Jersey and bigger than Conneticut) with no air force.

    The initial plan was simple, take the capital end the war in the first month of the war, force the government to capitulate, declare victory. On December 11th the invasion of Chechnya began. On December 31st, 6,000 men in armored vehicles along with 200 tanks assaulted the city from three sides.

    What could possibly go wrong?…nearly everything.

    When the War Party You Planned Goes Wrong…

    There is a great deal written about the disaster that was the First Chechen War and the scope of that exceeds what can be written here. I will touch upon those things that shaped Russian military thinking which affected the Ukraine War or are precursors to the same issues or the identical issues Russia faces in 2022 with the Ukraine War.

    Hey, Can I Borrow Some Gas…

    New T-80 tanks were given to Russian troops as they arrived in theater. Training and familiarization with the new vehicles were totally inadequate resulting in the best aspects of the new vehicles being unappreciated by the crews. Tankers familiar with the Russian doctrine of leaving diesel tank engines idling because they are notoriously hard to start in the cold, left the turbine engines of the T-80 tanks idling without understanding that this was completely unnecessary as turbine engines start instantly in cold weather. Tragically, Russian tank crews were also unaware that turbine engines consume nearly as much fuel at idle as they do running at full speed. The result was that Russian tank units quickly ran themselves out of fuel out of simple ignorance compounding the existing weakness in Russian logistics (more on that in a later episode). The highly mobile T-80s could not be utilized to its strengths because the men operating them did not understand their strengths. Instead, they exacerbated their weaknesses.

    Logistics would continue to be a problem for the Russian Army in Ukraine despite “reforms” and modernization post-Chechnya where Russian tanks were forced to fill up at Ukrainian gas stations, run of of fuel to be mocked by Ukrainian civilians and walk into Ukrainian police stations asking for fuel in the current Russian War in Ukraine.

    Demographics Drives Destiny…and Tank Design…

    As we noted in Part II, Russia in the years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was undergoing a significant decline in birthrate. Soviet planners recognized that this was going to limit the available manpower for military operations in the future. The legendarily “inexhaustible” supply of manpower that defeated the Wehrmacht in WII could not be counted on. The solution seemed simple, use technology and reduce the number of tank crew needed.

    The T-64 tank was a tank 20 years ahead of the west and a complete secret for most of that time ironically designed in Ukraine. One the main new features of this tank was the introduction of an autoloader for its large caliber main gun Which allowed the crew to be reduced from four to three. The primary impetus for the autoloader in the T-64 was to reduce the size of the tank as the larger caliber gun required the crew capacity of the turret to be reduced.

    As demographics Russia began to change with a sharp decline in the birthrate, the auto-loader of the t-64 gained a new appeal. No need to worry about a future tank crew shortage, technology just reduced tank crew requirements by 25%. A modified version of the T-64 autoloader system was also used in the “top of the line” T-80 and the T-72 tank lines as well.

    However, there was a problem with this manpower reducing auto-loader design was that it had the unfortunate effect of reducing manpower in more ways than one. The ammunition carousel for the autoloader sat below the turret and if the ammunition carousel was hit, the resulting catastrophic detonation would blow the turret off and kill the entire crew.

    Credit: OSINTtechnical

    This compromises of this design was considered a non-concern several reasons. The use of ERA (explosive reactive armor) over much of the tank would protect the tanks from single charge HEAT (HighExplosiveAnt-Tank) warheads found in RPG and ATGMs. Enemy infantry would have to aim for weak spots in the armor to land effective hits. In combined arms warfare, tanks operate with infantry support and friendly infantry would keep the enemy infantry busy with more things to worry about than taking the time for aiming at weak spots on a T-72 or T-80.

    “The Russian infantry wouldn’t get out of their armor to fight, so
    their vehicles had no cover. We just stood on the balconies and
    dropped grenades onto them as they drove by underneath.”

    Russia’s Military Nadir: The Meaning of the Chechen Debacle

    In the Russian assault on Grozny, the principle of combined arms broke down completely with conscript infantry refusing to leave their armored personnel carriers to fight. As a result, Chechen RPG gunners had free rein to take their time with well aimed shots to destroy Russian infantry inside their vehicles. Bereft, of infantry support even the T-80 was vulnerable to Chechen infantry armed with simple single warhead RPG-7 because as many were Afghan war veterans who knew the vulnerabilities of the Russian auto-loader system. Chechen gunners simply placed their RPG-7 shots above the 3rd and 4th wheels on the tracks to catastrophically detonate the ammunition destroying the tank.

    An additional weakness in the design was that RPG armed infantry in higher floors of buildings could fire down on the thin armor of the engine decks of T-80 tanks near the rear of the turret. The RPG warhead easily penetrated the thin armor on the engine roof hull and catastrophically detonating the ammo rack below, blowing of the turret and killing the crew.

    To add insult to injury, Russian tank were optimized for tank vs tank combat. The greatest threat to a tank was considered to be another tank. The best way to destroy a tank is with a big gun. The Russian T-64, T-80, and T-72 used a 125mm gun when most western armies used a 105mm gun. The best way to prevent a tank from being hit was to make it low profile as possible. Low profile tanks with big guns have to make design compromises. One of those compromises was that the design left little room in the tank for the main gun to elevate or depress. As a result, Russian tanks fighting in Grozny could not elevate the guns high enough to fire on the Chechens in the upper floors of buildings.

    The most advanced tank in the Russian arsenal, the T-80 received a terrible reputation from its combat debut in Grozny. The turbine engine was blamed, the ammo rack design was blamed. T-72 tanks were introduced to the fight and crews would at least follow their standard procedures and not run out of fuel. But their combat performance was just as bad as the T-80. The T-72 had the very similar ammo rack vulnerabilities except that the RPG-7 gunner had to aim between the third and fourth drive wheels instead of above them because the propellant in the ammunition carousel sat lower. I was hardly a meaningful inconvenience for Chechen RPG-7 gunners. In the politics of the Kremlin the T-80 fell out of favor as it designed in Kharkiv, in the Ukraine. In marketing move to sidestep the politics of the Kremlin the Russian designed and built, yet technically inferior, T-72 was rebranded as the T-90 to avoid the stigma of the disastrous Grozny battles.

    The key lesson is that all tanks are vulnerable without infantry support (with few exceptions) and modern military doctrine requires the use of combined arms in Armor battles, Russian tanks are more vulnerable than most when unaccompanied by infantry. As Russia uses modernized versions of these same tanks in Ukraine, this vulnerability is being reconfirmed in very costly ways.

    Kleptocracy Has A Cost…

    T-80 tanks of the 81st and 129th Guards Motorized Rifle regiments did not even have the explosives packs in their ERA (explosive reactive armor) loaded in the cassettes. Whether they were stolen wile the tanks were in depot or some supply officer o the take sold the to some mining magnate for a discount the fact was they were not on the tanks when they deployed to theater. So in instead of being vulnerable to single warhead RGPGs like the RPG-7 which would require hits in specific weak spots, these tanks entered the fight vulnerable to heat warheads all over the tank.

    This is relevant because in 2022 Ukrainian War, Russian tanks went into battle with cardboard spaces in place of where the explosive charges should have been installed to make the ERA armor function. Where the ERA explosive stolen fro the depot? Where they stolen in the supply chain. Where they paid for and never delivered? Someone was paid to deliver the ERA and someone in the Russian army had a job to make sure it was installed and maintained. These are not single failures they are multiple failures of oversight. Evidence of a corrupt kleptocracy that is systemic.

    Further evidence of systemic corruption the the 2022 Russian military is that the elite Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division had to dip into its ready reserve of vehicles after taking severe losses around the strategic city of Kharkiv in the 2022 Ukrainian War. When the ready reserve vehicles specifically stored for the elite Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division it was discovered that only 1 out of 10 tanks were serviceable . 9 out of 10 tanks were missing optics, encrypted radios, and even engines. It is also reported that the commander of the 13th Guards Tank regiment, one of two that make up the 4th Guards Tank Division, committed suicide rather than be executed for his lack of oversight and personal responsibility in the matter. If this is evidence of the crime that it appears to be, the corruption problems in the 1994 Russian military that made victory in the First Chechen War impossible appear to still exist. If 1 out 10 ready reserve of the elite Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division are unserviceable, how serviceable is the rest of the Russian equipment in storage in 2022?

    Guards In Name Only..

    Guard units in the Russian army are designated as “guards” as a recognition that they are elite troops. The “guards” units that assaulted Grozny were catastrophically bad.

    The Russian advance into the Chechen capital Grozny was a near massacre for the invaders–nearly 1,000 soldiers died and 200 vehicles were destroyed from Dec. 31, 1994, to the following New Year’s Day evening. As the most advanced vehicle in the Russian assault force, the T-80B and T-80BVs suffered horrific losses.

    This is Why Russia’s T-80 Tank Is a Total Disaster

    With the best forces in the the Russian military sitting on the sidelines, the “b team”…”guards in name only” troops in Grozny set the stage for the entire war. Recriminations flew, the war spiraled further and further out of Russian control. Russia failed to encircle Grozny (sound familiar) and they failed to encircle and/pr destroy Chechen separatist in other towns. Instead Russian troops repeatedly allowed Chechen forces to slip away and fight another day. The Russian army’s initial commitment of 23,600 troops in 1994 rose 70,500 in 1995 and results did not improve.

    Tactics changed from tanks leading assaults to tanks providing supporting fire. This simply put more pressure on the conscript infantry who simply stopped fighting all together.

    …and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Show Up.

    A BTR-80 burns in the streets of Grozny, Chechnya, during the First Chechen War.

    Faced with the fact that the combined arms doctrine which was the cornerstone and foundation of Russian military tactics and strategy was broken, the Russian army had only tough choices to make as constituted due to conscript infantry refusing to fight . Since urban combat exacerbated conscript infantry deficiencies, the Russian MoD (Ministry of Defense) made a bold move in 1995 effectively abandoning all urban combat. A rather hastily transfer of responsibility for control of urban areas from the MoD to the Russian MVD, or Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs. If the might of the Russian Army was not enough to win in Chechen urban areas, the troops of the MVD stood no chance as these troops critical skill set was crowd control. By August 1996 the charade was over and the Russian will to continue the war had collapsed.

    In typical fashion there were extreme discrepancies in casualties. The Russian MoD claimed 5,732 soldiers killed or missing. The Union of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia claim 14,000 soldiers killed or missing. Wounded estimates were between 17,892–52,000 wounded  depending on who was counting

    Conclusion:

    In 1994 Russia found itself in a war that it was not prepared for and one in which it could not use its best troops. Demographics drove weapons design with unexpected negative results. Russia’s combined arms doctrine centered around the regiment, the critical combat unit of the Russian Army since before WWII. The regiment based army was hopelessly broken. All the Russian advantages in air power, artillery fire and tanks could not make up for an infantry force unwilling to fight as a critical part of the classic combined arms model. Corruption and incompetence caused unnecessary losses and squandered the best chance for an early victory in December 1994. The Russian army was weaker than it had been in 400 years, things had to change, heads both political and military, had to roll.

    Stay tuned for The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

    Series Articles:

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Problem with the Donbas, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

  • A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    We ended Part II of this series with one of the foremost military strategic thinkers declaring that Russian forces are…in a classic example English understatement… “in a bit of a pickle”. What could possibly explain the idea that great Russian Bear, the conquerors of the Wehrmacht, the terrors of the Cold War, the second most powerful military on earth could be “in a bit of a pickle”? Lets look at the some “relatively” recent history for some clues for the size of the pickle barrel.

    In 1991 the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, broke up and its 15 former soviet socialist republics became independent countries. Some of these former soviet socialist republics joined the EU and NATO (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), others remained closely allied with Russia (Belarus, Armenia) and others took different economic, political and military paths to one degree or another. More on that later.

    Russia refers to the 1990s as the “Dismal 90’s” which were to have profound effects on the future of Russia which would in turn have dramatic effects on the future war with Ukraine.

    Macro Economics of the Dismal 90’s

    As the largest constituent state of the former Soviet Union, Russia was most seriously affected by its dissolution. GDP per capita is a crude measure of economics but it is an important one. Here is a chart:

    Russia GDP Per Capita 1988-2020
    Source: macrotrends.net

    You may be asking, “So what, Russian got poorer from 1990 to 2000. But look how they rebounded! They must have lots of money now. Why does this have anything to do with the Ukraine?

    The answer is simple, economic well being is one of the largest drivers of birthrate in a “modern” country. Birthrate is a critical driver demographics. If well educated young mothers, and Russia has one of the highest literacy rates and one of the highest education rates in the world, are not economically secure they will reduce the size of the family.

    Demographics, to a significant degree, drives destiny.

    Birthrate and Dismal 90’s

    Birthrate, like GDP for economics, is a crude measuring stick for determining demographics but it is an important one. Lets have a look:

    Crude Birthrate in Russia from 1840 to 2020
    Source: statista.com

    What is interesting about this particular chart is it shows a very high birthrate from 1900 to 1930 which shows a very high availability of people in the military age demographic (18-40) for Russia in World War II. The Soviet Union was famous for its human wave attacks in WWII where objectives were taken despite huge losses in soldiers, mostlybut not exclusively… young men. The crude birth rate suggests that the USSR could “afford” to recklessly and wildly “spend” (some would use the term waste) the lives of young Russians to achieve victory at all cost between 1940 and 1945. The crude birth rate data also points out that the heirs to the USSR, the Russian Federation, cannot afford to recklessly and wildly “spend” (some would use the term waste) lives of its young men on victory at all cost because these young men simply do not exist to spend in 2022 as these young men were never born.

    Birthrate is an important factor, but it is not the only factor. Let’s take a look at immigration and emigration.

    Immigration and Emigration and the Dismal 90s

    Russia was the largest constituent republic in the Soviet Union. While on “paper” all Soviet Socialist Republics were equal, reality dictated otherwise and in true Orwellian fashion, some socialist states were more equal than others. As such Russians dominated the politics, economics and military of the USSR. Russia had the most to lose and the farthest to fall. This affected the demographics of Russia in two important ways.

    Emigration: Russians left Russia to seek new lives and opportunities elsewhere. Many over to the United States, western Europe and Israel due to the bad economy, the unpopular war in Chechnya, and the perception (if not reality) of a chance for a better life.

    Immigration: While the lives of Russians in Russia had the furthest to fall, the lives of Russians in former Soviet Republics had the shortest distance to fall before life became unbearable. In some former Soviet Socialist Republics Russians were heavily discriminated against. In others, the standard of living fell to the point that the Russian Federation with all its problems with the economy and political instability (next point below) were a welcome improvement to the decline of standard of living in former soviet socialist republics where they may have lived for multiple generations.

    While the immigration to Russia offset the population losses due to emigration from Russia in most years, the net population growth due to migration in the critically important years of 200-2005 were smaller than previous years Why are these years important you may ask? Ethnic Russians who emigrate abroad in these years will not bear children of prime military age for the Russian military in 2022.

    Political Instability and the Dismal 90s

    Russia had two “official” coups and one “unofficial coup” in the Dismal 90’s. All contributed to the societal sense of uncertainty and general unease of the population.

    1991 Soviet Coup D’état Attempt

    The 1991 Soviet coup d’état attempt (August Coup) was an attempt to remove from power the government of  Mikhail GorbachevSoviet President and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, by Soviet hardliners including the leadership of the KGB and some elite units of the Soviet Army. The Soviet hardliners, KGB and Army were unhappy with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and fearful that the New Union Treaty that was about to be signed would go too far in reducing the central government‘s power relative to the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Russia’s most elite special operations forces, the Alpha Group and the Vympel Group, arrested Gorbachev and others but failed to arrest recently elected reformist Russian SFSR president Boris Yeltsin. The elite “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division assumed positions at all key government buildings in Moscow. Tanks of a single tank battalion of the elite “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division surrounded the White House, the seat of the power for the Russian SFSR.

    The reformist cause looked doomed when the actions of a single man changed changed the course of history on August 19, 1991. Major Sergey Yevdokimov, chief of staff of the tank battalion of the elite “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division surrounding the White House, declared his loyalty to the Russian SFSR. The tanks of the elite “Taman Guards“, repositioned to take position supporting the defense of the White House. Boris Yeltsin, the newly-elected “reformist” President of the Russian SFSR, stood atop tank No. 110 of the “Taman Guards” to deliver the famous “tank speech” (video) that would catapult Yeltsin on to the world stage ensuring that he eclipse a fading and increasingly ineffectual Mikhail Gorbachev. It was literally, a speech heard ’round the world.

    The Alpha Group and the Vympel Group integrated themselves into the crowds around White House ready to assassinate Yelsin and the pro-reform supporters. The leader of the operation was future Russian Federation Presidential candidate, future Yeltsin administration chairman of the Security Council, VDV Afghan War hero Alexander Lebed who reported that they could take control of the White House despite the presence of Evdokimov’s tank unit, but that there would be significant bloodshed. The coup plotters blinked.

    On the evening of August 20th, Evdokimov’s tanks were ordered to leave the White House in order to give the Alpha Group and the Vympel Group free rein to arrest and/or kill the reformers including Yeltsin. Evdokimov’s tanks were gone…the door was wide open…the Alpha Group and the Vympel Group were onsite. Lebed gained fame by not following orders given to assassinate Yeltsin and eliminate or arrest the pro-reform forces occupying the White House. Too much time had past, the Yeltsin speech had taken hold of the imagination of too many of the Russian people. The coup plot collapsed in days with a doomed Gorbachev briefly returning to power and all coup plotters arrested or committing suicide by August 23, 1991.

    The failed coup had the opposite effect that the coup plotters intended. Instead of preserving the central government‘s power, the result was the opposite and within months the complete dissolution of the Soviet Union had taken place. The “smartest guys” in the room, the “wizards of smart”, the “men of action” rolled to dice and got it all wrong.

    An unfortunate side effect of this coup was the acknowledgement of a new political reality that the loyalty of specific elite military units was now required to remain in power in Russia. ut that was a problem for another day. But tomorrow always comes and this would have disastrous consequences for Russia in future.

    Remember the names of the “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division as they are going to be important in Russia’s future in ways few people reading this will expect.

    1993 October Coup

    The opportunity for the 1993 October Coup or 1993 Russian constitutional crisis occurred in part due to public unhappiness with the fallout of Boris Yeltsin’s “shock therapy” economic reforms. This “shock therapy” resulted in inflation, credit constriction, skyrocketing unemployment, economic displacement, disrupted supplies of staple goods and a host of other social ills as Russia raced towards decentralization and a market economy. Once again this was a effectively a dispute between the reformers lead by Yeltsin and those who wanted something closer to the old Soviet Union back (on a smaller Russian only scale) represented by the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People’s Deputies led by Alexander Rutskoy, Vice President of the Russian Federation. Yeltsin was impeached by the Congress of People’s Deputies. Yeltsin dissolved the Congress of People’s Deputies and dismissed Rutskoy as Vice President of Russia. Events travelled faster than the courts. Questionably capable Interior Ministry troops were in the streets supporting President Yeltsin attempting to restore some sort of order. Veterans, some quite capable combat veterans, supported Rutskoy and the Congress of People’s Deputies. People were dying in the streets at a rate in Moscow not seen since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

    This time the Russian Army took only a few hours to decide whose side it was on. This time the Army came out squarely on the side of Yeltsin and the reformers. The most elite units of the Russian military, the Russian special operations Alpha Group and the Vympel Group and the conventional Army “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division were on Yeltsin and the reformers side. These elite units quickly secured the levers of power in Moscow save one.

    This time the coup plotters took extra preparation is securing the very same White House where Yeltsin gave his famous tank speech” which launched his career into the stratosphere just 26 months earlier. The White House was now occupied by many experienced and heavily armed armed VDV (more on them is subsequent posts) veterans, many of whom had extensive Afghanistan combat experience. These men were prepared to fight against Yetlsin’s wild, destructive reforms and were a formidable obstacle to any Interior Ministry troops. This symbolic move by Rutskoy and the Congress of People’s Deputies was not lost on anyone, especially Yeltsin.

    Yeltsin responded with a symbolic move of his own and on the on the 4th of October ordered tanks from the “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division, to the White House . This was the same unit that rescued the reform government in the 1991 coup. At dawn, the “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division, surrounded the White House. Within hours Taman Guards” tanks opened fire on the White House with 125mm main battery weapons (video). At noon Russia’s most elite special operation units, the Alpha Group and the Vympel Group, began a floor by floor clearing of the building. In the face of overwhelming firepower, the forces of the Congress of People’s Deputies and Vice President Rutskoy were mopped up. Rutskoy made a last minute appeal to the Russian Air Force to bomb the Kremlin (as if that would have made a difference) on the Echo of Moscow radio station. This request was ignored by the Russian Air Force and all it served to do was add a surreal, comic element to the ineptitude of the entire coup attempt.

    The White House (Moscow, Russian Federation) following President Yeltsin’s 4 October 1993 attack.
    © AP / Shutterstock

    The effect of the coup was bad for Russia in that people in Russia felt unsafe due to the use of force and increasingly unsafe over time as the support for Yeltsin’s use of force dropped significantly over time.

    Due to the chaos, uncertainty and use of force, even more young Russian couples chose not to have children. The emigration rate which was dropping, plateaued as young Russian couples chose to live abroad, away from the coups, the tank fire, the calls on the radio for Russia’s own air force to bomb its own capitol building. Fewer children were born in the next decade in Russia. Fewer sons would be born to be of combat age in a war if it were to occur in 2022.

    Once again, it was confirmed in the minds of many that in the post-Soviet Russian Federation the only way to hold on to political power was to have the loyalty of elite Russian military units. And when push came to shove, the special operators of the Alpha Group and the Vympel Group were certainly useful…but the heavy hitters of the “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division and Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division is where the real combat power lay to preserve a government. These were the two units that preserved a president or destroyed him in the post-soviet Russian Federation. It is easy to see why no one in power in the 1990s would want the “Taman Guards2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division or Kantemir 4th Guards Tank Division any further than an easy interventions distance from Moscow at all times. This was the political reality of the new Russian Federation. It was simply thought of as a temporary problem that would in effect solve itself. Unfortunately for the Russian Federation and Yeltsin, tomorrow came around much sooner than anyone thought and the results were going to be enormously costly and humiliating in both lives and treasure.

    The “Unofficial Coup” of 1999

    • Authors note: In this series I am going to intentionally avoid most “conspiracy theory” type discussions and focus on the what is readily provable or in some cases, I may mention something “inherently” unprovable if the belief in the theory has real world effects. While some facts of the “unofficial coup” are disputed, there is no question that there was a non-standard transfer of power in 1999. There is no doubt that apartment buildings were bombed. There is no doubt that a war was the result.

    On 31 December 1999 an incredibly unpopular Boris Yeltsin resigned as of President of the Russian federation. Yeltsin’s replacement was political upstart Prime Minister and former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. A former KBG officer certainly was going to give some of the population reason to leave Russia all by itself. But the Putin presidency came with more than just KGB baggage. It came with a “terror campaign and a new highly unpopular war against an old enemy. The dreaded Chechens.

    One of the reasons that Yeltsin was so unpopular was that the dreaded Chechens, the breakaway fighters in the Caucasus that had defeated Russia in the First Chechen War had apparently claimed responsibility for the bombings of four apartment buildings in Russia killing more than 300 people and injuring thousands of others in September of 1999

    Yeltsin resigned on New Years Eve and Putin came into power January 1, 2000 promising a new war with Chechnya that would redress the loss of national pride resulting from the loss of the First Chechen War, provide vengeance for the dead from the first war and vengeance for the dead from the terror bombings at the same time. A bold plan that Russian nationalist found appealing. The tired, old, impotent drunk Yeltsin was out, the virile, strong, clever Putin was in.

    The problem with the entire story was that the Chechens were the least likely people on the planet to have bombed Russian apartment buildings. The Chechens were successful in their war with Russia and effectively been grated all their demands with signing of the Treaty of Moscow in 1997. Chechens had nothing to gain and everything to lose with renewed hostilities with Russia. So why would they do it?

    Here is the conspiracy part, they probably didn’t…

    There is evidence that the bombings of the four apartment buildings in Russia that occurred in September 1999 were not the responsibility of the Chechens, but instead was the responsibility of the successor to the KGB…the Russian FSB. That the FSB, as the heirs to the KGB wanted to finally achieve the coups that they had previously attempted and failed in 1991 and 1993. I will not take one position or the other in this as the “truth” as is not critical to the point I am trying to make here.

    That point is, whether this is true or not, the accusation (I leave you to determine the credibility) causes yet more uncertainty in the minds of the Russian public as to trust in their government and yields yet another disincentive to young mothers that affects the the birth rate in the late 1990s and early 2000s. If your government is willing to kill apartment buildings full of people and blame it on a minority population for political advantage…why have children in that country. Such a government could justify killing anyone for political advantage.

    The First Chechen War and the Dismal 90s

    There was this rather large war that was incredibly unpopular with a shocking course of action and an even more shocking conclusion for the Russian public called the First Chechen War. We will cover that in the next post entitled, “What if You Threw A War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?”

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War…the conclusion

    Economics, government instability, political chaos, an unpopular and costly war, birth rates all lead to this critical data point.

    Population Pyramid Russian Federation 2020
    Source: populationpyramid.net

    In 2022, Russia will have the smallest number of prime military age males in its history just as embarks on the largest military endeavor that the country has participated in since Word War II. This demographic fact will have profound effects on Russian strategy, force composition, force structure and societal resilience.

    If demographics determines destiny, and there is strong evidence it does, Russia had some very careful choices to make in the face of this fact. Next we will learn about some of those effects and the choices Russian military planners had to make with The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV entitled “What if You Threw A War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?”

    Series Articles:

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Problem with the Donbas, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

  • The Problem with the Donbas

    The Problem with the Donbas

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    Igor Girkin, aka Strelkov, delivers a press conference on 28 July 2014 in Donetsk. (Source: BULENT KILIC/AFP via Getty Images)

    Lawrence Freedman is the Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London who wrote the best assessment of where Russia is in the Ukrainian war (as of March 31st, where Russia has been and what the future might look like that I have seen so far. The original link to the article is here:

    Article in full:

    In 2014 Igor Girkin, aka ‘Strelkov’ (the shooter), became the face of the rebellion in Ukraine’s Donbas region against the new government in Kyiv. He was not actually Ukrainian, but a Russian with strong nationalist views, who enjoyed historical re-enactments of past Russian wars, and had worked for the FSB (the successor to the KGB). He was a veteran of the conflicts that erupted in the former Soviet Union after its collapse, including in Chechnya. In February 2014, after a popular movement had led the pro-Russian president Yanukovych to flee, Girkin helped to create the conditions for the annexation of Crimea before moving on to the supposedly Russophile Donbas, becoming the Defence Minister of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk Peoples Republic’.

    He did enough to help turn what might have been patchy unrest into a violent conflict but then fell out with Moscow for two reasons. First he was attracting too much attention, especially after he was implicated in the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner – MH17 – for which he is now being tried (in absentia) in the Netherlands. Second, he disagreed over political objectives. He wanted the territory of the Donbas (and more if possible) to follow Crimea into becoming part of the Russian Federation. But then Putin held back. Militarily this would certainly have been easier for Russia then than it is now, but Putin’s preferred strategy then was to integrate the Donbas back into Ukraine under a new constitution that would guarantee it extra rights and an ability to influence Kyiv’s future political direction. Girkin thought this was a lost opportunity. His readiness to speak his mind, and the publicity surrounding him, irritated Moscow, and so he was told to get back to Russia and shut up.

    Putin’s Donbas Dilemma

    To follow his preferred strategy Putin first had to stop the separatists losing to Ukrainian forces. He did this in August 2014 by inserting Russian regular forces into the battle. Then, having inflicted some heavy blows on Ukrainian forces, he agreed to ceasefire talks, which led to the Minsk agreements of September, which were revised slightly after more fighting the next February. In principle these agreements achieved his objectives but in practice they failed because they were never implemented. He was stuck with subsidising the two enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk, who were left in limbo, while Ukraine continued, from Putin’s perspective, on its alarmingly pro-Western course. 

    Accepting that his plan from 2014 was not working, Putin either had to accept an increasingly unsatisfactory frozen conflict or take his chances and resolve the matter once and for all, turning Ukraine into a client state with a compliant government. There are many explanations for why he embarked on this war, including the role of NATO and demands for a new security order, but at its heart this was always about Ukraine, and Putin’s inability to accept it as an independent state that was escaping from its historic ties to Russia as it turned to the West. 

    As Putin was developing his plans, a disenchanted Girkin, having failed to make a mark in Russian politics as a neo-imperialist, kept up a grumpy commentary on events. He declared his former enclave to be a ‘dump’, with its inhabitants worse off than they would have been in either Russia or Ukraine. Even when Putin ordered a massive build-up of forces around Ukraine he was sceptical. Earlier this year, he noted – correctly – that there were insufficient troops mobilised to complete a full invasion of Ukraine, suspecting at most Putin would try a limited operation in the Donbas. 

    After a month of war he observed that a ‘catastrophically incorrect assessment’ of Ukraine’s forces had been made, and that there was now a risk of a long and debilitating war –  ‘a bloody push and pull’. Now he views the conflict in even more apocalyptic terms. His reaction to the war going badly, however, is not to advise abandoning it but instead doubling down, generating more reserves from within Russia; putting the whole economy on a war footing; breaking off all negotiations with Kyiv; and seeking to ‘liberate’ more territory for incorporation into Russia. The war, he insists, must either be won completely or it will be lost completely. Losing he acknowledges as a distinct possibility. As things stand there are only a few weeks left before the forces in the Donbas will be unable to function.

    Avoiding Defeat

    Girkin himself now is a figure of little importance, but the line he is taking, and the impossible advice he is giving, indicates just how high the stakes are for Putin. Western attention is naturally drawn to those brave souls protesting a cruel and catastrophic war on Russian streets. Hope for some sort of regime change in Moscow, however it might be organised, conveys a desire for a more reasonable and less obsessive figure to take Putin’s place, ready to end the war and restore amicable relations with the rest of the world so that sanctions can be ended and the massive task of reconstructing Ukraine begin. 

    But for the moment it is important to note that Putin may be as vulnerable to his critics among the hawkish nationalists as to those from more technocratic circles alarmed at the path now taken. It is the nationalists who have been energised by Putin’s aggression and will be most distressed should he fail. As cracks start to appear in the state-controlled media, challenging the view that the military campaign is going well and on schedule, those sounding the alarm warn of the consequences should the multitude of Russia’s enemies, from Americans to the ‘Nazis’ in Kyiv, triumph. They want to move beyond the limited operation that Putin claimed to have set in motion to something more absolutist. Ukraine must be defeated, and seen to be defeated, no matter what the costs. Perhaps because he is aware of this, Putin shows no sign of relenting on any of his core demands. He dare not confirm the weakness in his position.

    This needs to be kept in mind when considering the evident uncertainty in Moscow about how to bring this war to a moderately satisfactory conclusion. There has been particular interest in the statement of 25 March from Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defence who announced that the first stage of the operation had been successfully concluded, with extensive damage to the Ukrainian military machine, and that they would now focus on the main objective, which was the Donbas. This appeared to let Kyiv off the hook, which meant, however this was dressed up, some retreat both from Moscow’s original objectives and its current offensive.

    A few days later the Foreign Ministry announced, ostensibly as a gesture of ‘de-escalation’ to support the Istanbul peace talks, that the Russians were going to wind down their attacks on Kyiv and the northern city of ChernihivThis was then followed by limited signs of troop movements, with some units moving back into Belarus. This has led to intense debate about whether the Russians are really serious about this shift in objectives. They are not known for honest portrayals of their policies. Every gesture has to be scrutinised for deception and tricks. Perhaps the real purpose is to regroup to prepare for new offensives? How does this new focus square with the missiles and shells that continued to fly at all types of targets, civilian as much as military, in Chernihiv and elsewhere? There has yet to be much concrete progress at the talks. President Macron, who puts more store in keeping up communications with Putin than most, was rebuffed in his latest efforts to establish a humanitarian corridor to Mariupol, to bring relief and to allow more civilians to escape.

    The state of the war will become clearer over the current days but there is no reason to doubt that a degree of focus has been forced on the Russian military. Not because they have achieved their first set of objectives, let alone because they wish to give a boost to negotiations, but because they are, one could say, in a bit of a pickle. The vast armies assembled to invade Ukraine have been frustrated and now largely exhausted, both literally in terms of fatigue as well as in their supplies. Logistics and morale are pressing issues along with casualties and lost equipment. They simply cannot hold all their current positions beyond the Donbas region, as has been demonstrated in a number of successful Ukrainian counter-offensives. To keep these troops going in defensive positions, say close to Kyiv, so that they can keep Ukrainian forces tied down still requires supply lines for they must remain strong enough to avoid conspicuous and embarrassing defeats. Withdrawal carries its own hazards but the advantage of redeployment is that these forces can be used to achieve what is now the main objective. Reinforcements will arrive but, on the evidence so far, few will be elite units, many will involve unwilling troops dragooned into service, and the equipment taken from the reserves will often be obsolete and even less well maintained than that which it is replacing.

    All this means that it makes some sort of sense for the Russians to concentrate on the Donbas. There is even still a line of commentary that urges President Zelensky to see in this an opportunity to end the war and give Putin something that he wants in order to bring this terrible war to an end. Others wonder why Putin did not simply make the Donbas his sole objective from the start instead of seeking to subjugate all of Ukraine and install a new government in Kyiv.

    A Consolation Prize?

    This is a question worth addressing because it takes us back to the role of the Donbas in this whole sorry story. It reminds us why political and military objectives cannot be discussed in isolation from each other.

    Recall the days before the invasion. Then the Russian narrative was about the ‘genocidal’ threat Ukraine posed to the Donbas. The separatists encouraged this with an elaborate rigmarole about how they were being shelled from Ukrainian positions and so must evacuate civilians into Russia for their own safety. On 21 February, when Putin convened that odd and stilted meeting of his Security Council, the question on the table was should Russia recognise (but not annex) the independent statelets of Donetsk and Luhansk. At the end of the day, after a long speech, so full of grievances and angry assertions that it seemed to be building up to much more, Putin announced, somewhat anti-climactically, that indeed Russia would recognise these statelets.

    This was curious given the Russian line up to this point that these enclaves should be part of Ukraine, who should pay for their upkeep, but allow them more self-government and influence over Kyiv’s policies. The claim at the Security Council meeting was that the Minsk agreements were dead because Ukraine clearly did not want these territories anymore. That left another puzzle. The enclaves only constituted about a third of the total territory of the two provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. It soon became apparent that the separatists would lay claim to all this territory. The next day the recognition of these statelets was put into law in Moscow, followed by the inevitably staged ‘provocation’ that required Russia to act to protect their security. On 24 February when Putin announced his objectives of the invasion that was then underway he explained:

    “We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”

    Thus the rapid escalation of Russian concerns led to the dramatic conclusion that only with regime change in Kyiv could the security of these territories be guaranteed.

    Take away all the dissembling and the make-believe and one can see the policy dilemma that has been present from 2014 which the invasion was intended to solve. The starting point then may well have been Putin’s belief that Russia had some responsibility to protect the population of the Donbas after the unfortunate turn of events in Kyiv and the flight of Yanukovych. The main concern, however, was that this would lead to Ukraine drifting away even more from Russia despite the historic connections between the two countries. Although Putin’s actions in 2014 accelerated the detachment he hoped, somehow, to use the Minsk agreements to pull it back. This effort has proved to be futile which is why he really did want to achieve regime change in Kyiv as the only way to reconstitute this lost unity.

    This partly explains why he held back from taking the Donbas in 2014 when he had the chance to do so. But it was not the only reason. There were three others. First, he was aware that there was no real clamour in this territory to join Russia. It would be challenging and costly to govern them. Second, there would be far more severe Western sanctions imposed on Russia than those following the annexation of Crimea. And third, a new border would be created between Russia and Ukraine that would then have to be defended against an angry Ukraine that would get increased backing from the West.

    All those considerations still apply except more so. So long as Putin stays in power the alienation of Ukraine from Russia is complete and it will integrate more with the West. So long as Ukrainian territory is occupied severe sanctions will stay in place and the Ukrainians will keep up the pressure on any new cease-fire line that leaves their territory under Russian control. Their army is no longer one that Russia dare underestimate. The problems of governing and controlling this territory will be immense. They have destroyed those they were going to save. Their prize from the war will be shattered and depopulated town and cities, with those still in residence sullen and hostile, ready to resist and support insurgencies. This is why taking Donbas is not a satisfactory consolation prize for Putin, let alone for those hardliners demanding that he stick to his maximalist objectives. It is simply a recipe for continued instability, turning Putin’s folly of 2014 into an even greater catastrophe, serving as a continuing drain on Russia’s dwindling economic and military resources.

    In all the searches for a peace settlement it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there are no good outcomes for Russia from this war. It has inflicted massive human, political, and economic costs on itself, as well as on Ukraine. Nothing that Moscow can now achieve can outweigh those costs. If he is unable to muster a final offensive to achieve his original aims there is no formula that will enable Putin to pretend that this has all been worthwhile and he has achieved exactly what was intended. As Igor Girkin has observed, he will have lost as completely as he once hoped to win.

    End of article.

    Some of you are asking…what the (explicative)…the Russian military is “in a bit of a pickle?”…Russia is “avoiding defeat”…Russia is being forced to a “consolation prize”… how is it possible for any of these things to be true? How is it that the second largest military in the world did not conquer the Ukraine in days (as the US and German predicted it would happen…they were objectively wrong as this is day 40 of the war) and how is it that Russia won’t get exactly what they want? We will begin to discuss the reality behind those statements in The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III entitled “A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War”

    Series Articles:

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Problem with the Donbas, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?

  • The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    Russo-Ukrainian Was Day 1. Credit: Jomini of the West

    Many people have wondered what is going on in this war in Ukraine. What is real? What is propaganda. Who started it? Whose fault is it? What is true, what isn’t. Russia must be winning…right? If the news media is reporting Russia isn’t winning, how can that possibly be true?

    In this series we will look at some perspectives that were not readily covered in the media or were misrepresented altogether. This series of articles will attempt to connect “the dots” whereever possible.

    What this series wont do is tell you what to think. Information will be presented and you will be welcome to make up you own mind.

    This series will not focus on sentimentality, as it will stick to facts over emotions. This will make some people unhappy, in fact it might make almost everyone unhappy. Everyone is welcome to express their thoughts and feelings in the comments.

    This series will not be perfect. It will not be the “final word” on anything. What it will be is a carefully considered series of articles from military, historical, economic, political and demographic perspective. Hopefully nearly everyone will learn something and a few might learn quite a bit.

    We will start tomorrow with where we are right now…March 4, 2022, in the middle of this war with Russia declaring they are shifting strategies and focusing on the Donbas. We will begin tomorrow with a post entitled “The Problem with the Donbas“.

    Series Articles:

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, a Series…

    The Problem with the Donbas, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part II

    A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the War, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part III

    What If You Threw a War Party and the Cannon Fodder You Invited Don’t Want To Attend?, The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part IV

    The Russian-Ukrainian War, Part V, You Lose the War You Needed to Win to Survive…What’s next?