Years of Attrition – Running In Place: 1915/16 & 2023/? (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #359b)

It is 1915 all over again. That date could just as easily be changed to 1916. Those two years are the most anonymous in the history of World War I. It is much easier to remember the year in which the war started. I cannot count how many times I have read about the beautiful European summer of 1914 which was abruptly interrupted by the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. This was then followed by the summer long march to war. 1917 is another year from the war that has gotten plenty of recognition due to the Russian Revolution. So has 1918. We were taught in school that the armistice was signed “at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.” That numerical symmetry made November 11, 1918, easy to remember. As for 1915 and 1916, they act as outliers of wartime anonymity. Bleak periods marked by muddy trenches, shellshock, and senseless loss of life.

The only people likely to recall what happened in 1915 and 1916 are historians or military history buffs. For them, those years included the Battles of the Somme and Verdun on the Western Front and the Brusilov Offensive on the Eastern Front. These battles, like the campaigns which accompanied them, failed to bring about a decisive result. While one side or the other may have gained a tactical or even a strategic victory, it did little to alter the overall trajectory of the war. The best that can be said about such battles and campaigns is that they eroded the defender’s capabilities. Unfortunately, they eroded the aggressor’s capabilities even more. This was part of a long, hard slog of death and destruction that would not end for a couple of more years.

    No man’s land – Scene from the Battle of Bakhmut (Credit: Mil.gov.ua)

Wasted Years – The War Rages On
1915 and 1916 are the wasted years of World War I. Periods when the war stagnated, rather than stopped. This stalemate only served to prolong the war. There are parallels with the Ukraine-Russia War. 2023 was a year when tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides lost their lives in offensive operations that gained very little ground. The war is now at a stalemate with neither side strong enough to carry out a successful offensive.  2023 was 1915, 2024 could be 1916. The beginning of the war has become distant, the future looks limitless.

There is little doubt that in the near-term Ukraine and Russia will get weaker in a lengthening war. There will be strains felt not only on the battlefield, but throughout their respective societies. The next year will serve to further increase hardship on both combatant nations. The situation is bleak enough that it can make even those most fervently pro-Ukraine pause and wonder if the current situation might be as good as it will get for them.

Much the same could be said for the Russians, who while having an advantage in men and material, continue to display an inability to conduct successful offensive operations. The stalemate raises the same question that confronted the Great Powers during World War I. When is a less than ideal peace preferable to the gamble of future military operations which might erode one side or the other’s ability to sustain the war. The corollary is why do both sides insist on further damaging their future for minimal gains at best? Parallels with World War I are useful in understanding why the two sides keep fighting despite the war looking increasingly unwinnable. They are in the same position the Great Powers were in during World War I.

Bombed out – Residential building in Avdiivka, Ukraine (Credit: National Police of Ukraine)

Fighting On – Going In For The Kill
A parallel can be drawn between Ukraine in 2023 and France during the First World War. The same can be done for Russia and the German Empire. Ukraine, like France, suffered an invasion. This caused both to lose a large swath of economically productive territory. It also left large numbers of their civilians in the hands of aggressors. In trying to expel the invaders, both have incurred frightening levels of casualties. No politician would dare to call for a ceasefire after such sacrifices even if it could be in the national interest. It would lock in the aggressor’s gains. This means that Ukraine, just like France, will continue to fight. The alternative looks worse.

At the same time, the longer Ukraine fights the more men and material they will lose. Unlike Russia, Ukraine does not have a large pool of conscripts or volunteers to draw from. Each one they lose is much harder to replace. Continuing to fight the war will only exacerbate this problem. Ukraine’s leadership knows this, but just like the French they must try to liberate their territory, no matter the cost. Unlike the French, Ukraine does not have powerful allied armies fighting shoulder to shoulder with them.

As for Russia, the war has badly weakened their military and geopolitical standing, but many believe that Russia has weathered the worst of the war. The economy has been reconfigured to support the military. Russia is much less reliant on allies than the Ukrainians. Plus, Russia’s allies such as Iran and North Korea are more than glad to provide them with armaments for payment in cash or natural resources. Public support for the war in Russia is still lukewarm, but the Putin regime ensures that resistance is futile. For the first time since the war started, the Kremlin looks like it has the upper hand. Russia is in a somewhat similar position to the German Empire during World War I, which also had powerful western nations allied against it.

Open grave – Kaiser Wilhelm II inspects a trench during the German Spring Offensive in 1918

All or Nothing = Risk Management
In the spring of 1918, the Germans were on the cusp of victory. They had won the war on the Eastern Front. Their Spring Offensive in France and Belgium made remarkable gains until it stalled out. That would be the German’s last gasp. The strains of fighting the war almost totally alone on the Western Front finally broke the German Army. Political collapse soon followed. The Germans would have been much better off to have negotiated a settlement when they were in a position of strength. By continuing to fight, they were their own worst enemy. An all or nothing strategy resulted in defeat.

Russia shows no signs of negotiating either. Putin believes the west is tiring of the war and that support for Ukraine is waning. It might also be just as true that Russians are tired of the war and the astronomical number of casualties their forces are suffering. Continuing to fight and lose thousands of men each week is a risk Putin is willing to take. Whether or not the soldiers doing the fighting will continue to risk – and mostly lose – their lives could be a deciding factor. Right now, it is 1915 in the Ukraine-Russia War, but as World War I showed the situation can change radically.

Exercises In Self-Defeatism – A World War I Parallel (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #359a)

I have been fascinated with the First World War for as long as I can remember. Part of that fascination comes from trying to imagine what it must have been like as the Great Powers committed themselves to perpetual disaster. One of the questions that often arises in my mind while reading about the war is why both sides failed to find some sort of compromise before 1918. As the years passed. it was obvious that the war was doing irreparable damage to all involved. The solution was to throw millions of men into battle with the vain hope that this would somehow alter the military situation. It only served to further solidify the stasis along the front lines. The war became a contest of wills to see which side could hold out the longest. The ramifications were immense.

Holding out – Ruins of Ypres Belgium in 1919 (Credit: William Lester King)2

Holding Out – The Great Power Struggle
During World War I the Great Powers were caught in a trap of its own making. France was bleeding itself to death. Losing an entire generation on the western front. By war’s end France would be demographically devastated. The same could be said to a lesser extent for the British and German Empires. Both had other reasons to be concerned beyond demographics. For the British, financing the war was pushing the empire towards bankruptcy. The German Empire was being starved of men and material. An even greater starvation led to a German civilian population that was becoming increasingly unruly. The Russian Empire had plenty of men, but the war put strains on the economy and society that eventually led to an internal implosion. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was barely able to hold on after the first five months of the war. From 1915 onward, its military became ever more combat ineffective. The Ottoman Empire was close to collapse throughout the war. A situation it had suffered from before the fighting began. With each passing year of the war, Ottoman authority over their subjects grew more tenuous.

Each of the Great Powers had two things in common during the war. The first was that it continually eroded their power. The second was that they continued to fight the war even though it was no longer in their best interest. None of the Great Powers would ever be the same. As a matter of fact, four of the empires would no longer exist by the end of 1918. The British Empire did survive, but the war was the beginning of its end. While the empire continued, it was nowhere near as powerful as it had been at the start of 1914. All of Europe’s Great Powers had taken part in an exercise of self-destruction during World War I. The inability to pivot from stalemate to ceasefire to negotiated peace sealed their fates. While each had good reasons for continuing the war, the end results were always the same, self-defeating disasters.

      A bleak prospect – Damaged building in Avdiivka, Ukraine

Static Situation – Stuck In The Muck
Stalemates in war have vast and unpredictable consequences. This can seem counterintuitive since a stalemate means that the frontlines are static. The gains made from attacks are incremental at best. Stalemates give the illusion that nothing is happening. There is combat going on and it is going nowhere. Stalemates have a way of lulling those watching from afar into a false sense of security. Observers begin to believe that nothing can break a stalemate. This is the situation that now exists in the Ukraine-Russia War. Early in 2023, the Russians tried to go on the offensive. This only exposed how bogged down they had become in eastern and southern Ukraine. The Kremlin’s forty-eight-hour war had transformed into a months-long quagmire that could continue for years. At that point no one was calling the war a stalemate, at least not on the Ukrainian side.

Ukraine and its western allies had high hopes that the Ukrainian’s planned spring counteroffensive would be able to break through the Russian lines, like they had during the fall of 2022 in Kharkiv Province. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian counteroffensive started later than planned. It soon became bogged down due to a combination of factors that included stout Russian defenses, lack of weaponry, soldiers with little to no combat experience or enough training to conduct combined arms warfare, and questionable strategy. When Ukraine’s top military commander, Valery Zaluzhny, penned an article in The Economist at the beginning of November admitting that the war had become a stalemate, there was no denying a situation that had become glaringly obvious.

The frontlines are static, combat is a muddy slog, and both sides are trying to figure out how to use the current situation to their advantage. The defense has the advantage while the aggressor incurs thousands of casualties with very little to show for it. Comparisons between the Ukraine-Russia War and World War I are now appropriate. Years of unending warfare with nominal gains and high casualty rates could become the norm. And just like World War I, both sides fight on even though arguments could be made for both sides that it would be better to negotiate peace. That almost certainly will not happen anytime soon. From Ukraine’s perspective that would be a mistake though this could change as the war grinds on.

    An all-too-common scene – Bakhmut under fire (Credit: Dpsu.gov.ua)

Indecisive Results – The Static Front
The current stalemate is redefining the war. Since the war began on February 24, 2022, specific areas of the fighting have been usually defined as the eastern front, southern front, and behind the lines (aerial and drone attacks on both Ukrainian and Russian targets), Now there is only the static front. Several thousand kilometers of lines with stout defensive works including tank traps, mines, ditches, and any type of obstruction that can slow the aggressor down long enough for the defense to bring massive amounts of firepower against them. Neither side enjoys air superiority. Both lack the capabilities to break through. The war has become one of attrition that does not promise decisive results in either the near or medium term. This is as close to World War I as any war has gotten in Europe since that struggle. The parallels between the Ukraine-War and World War I are not perfect, but they are similar enough to have eerie echoes of a struggle that ultimately proved self-defeating.

Click here for: Years of Attrition – Running In Place: 1915/16 & 2023/? (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #359b)

Loss of Control – Ukraine’s Precarious Situation (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #358)

Several months ago, I would have said that the world is inching towards catastrophe. And yet I thought it could probably be avoided. The greatest threat to global stability was the Ukraine-Russia War. That was before the Hamas terror attacks that killed 1,400 Israelis. Suddenly, the world seemed poised on a knife edge. The threat of a series of interlocking conflicts that might metastasize into a larger, possibly world war was as high as it had been since the Cold War ended. These days I am more prone to the belief that the world is hurtling towards a period of major global instability that could lead to something much worse than anyone has seen since 1945. I find myself no longer waiting for something terrible to happen, I find myself expecting it. I hope I am wrong, but hope is just wishful thinking divorced from reality.

In retrospect, Russia’s full-scale Invasion of Ukraine was the start of a calamitous period fraught with danger. There is no end in sight for the war and greater troubles for Ukraine have been looming on the horizon for quite some time. What will happen in the Ukraine-Russia war during the next twelve months is impossible to predict. The largest conventional war in Europe since 1945 shows no signs of abating. If that was not bad enough, war in the Middle East beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict is a distinct possibility.

Preventing this conflict from spreading has been a focus for much of the western world. This effort has been led by America. The problem, quite understandably, is that this has taken some of the focus off the Ukraine-Russia War. Trying to limit two major conflicts is taxing America’s diplomatic and military resources. Nevertheless, this must be done or both conflicts could worsen. While most believe that this is more likely to happen in the Middle East, the situation in Ukraine might be the greater threat to spiral out of control. In some ways, it already is out of Ukraine’s control.

The war goes on – Ukrainian soldier amid ruined residential buildings in Avdiivka
(Credit: National Police of Ukraine)

Codependency – A Precarious Existence
Control is an illusion. An illusion that human beings create in their minds to believe they have control over their life, events, and other people. Anyone who has ever gotten deathly ill or suffered a serious injury knows how easy it is to lose the illusion of control. A catastrophic event can suddenly make us realize that we were not in control all along. That we were at the whim of forces that were beyond our control. This realization can be as life changing as the incident which made us realize it. A loss of the illusion of control teaches us just how capricious the world can be. The illusion of control also applies to nations. The most powerful ones have more control than weaker ones, but that illusion will eventually be wiped away. Every empire has crumbled. Not a single one has stood the test of time.

In the case of weaker nations, they have even less control, and their existence is more precarious. They are at the mercy of events and others to a much greater extent than powerful nations. This is the situation in which Ukraine currently finds itself, more so now than ever before. Ukraine’s lack of control over their own situation has been ongoing since the full-scale invasion of its territory by Russia on February 24, 2022.

While Ukrainians have done a magnificent job of holding off Russian forces while liberating portions of occupied territory, Ukraine’s government has been at the mercy of its allies. On balance, this has been a good thing. The United States, along with most members of NATO and the European Union, have supplied the Ukrainians with enough weapons to defend themselves. Arms shipments and economic support have given Ukraine a fighting chance. The country would not have survived the Russian onslaught without it. The problem for Ukraine has been and will continue to be that they do not have control over this support.

Current situation – Ukraine-Russia War as of December 7, 2023 (Credit: Viewsridge)
(Territory occupied by Russia in red – Territory occupied by Ukraine in blue)

Supporting Cast – The Hinges of Fate
Ukraine’s position on the battlefield is always tenuous because of an overt reliance upon its allies. That means it is at the mercy of each nation’s domestic political situation. This can sometimes be a good thing since countries like Poland and those in the Baltic states have populations that realize the threat that Russia presents to their own existence. They have been eager to support Ukraine, lest Ukraine lose. This would enable Russia to go on further military adventures. Ukraine’s closest European allies cannot afford this due to geographical proximity.

The situation is different with allies in Central and Western Europe who have provided support. These countries feel the Russian threat less acutely. Then there is the United States, which has been Ukraine’s most powerful and greatest supporter. This has done wonders to boost Ukraine’s confidence, fighting spirit, and survivability. Conversely, this also means that if American support wanes, then Ukraine’s position on the battlefield would immediately become dire.

Red alert – Ukrainian soldiers in front of aurora on November 5, 2023
(Credit: National Police of Ukraine)

Truth & Consequences – A Serious Situation
It is not an exaggeration to say that without American support, Ukraine’s war effort could collapse. The consequences for Ukraine, European security, and American geopolitical influence would be dire. Unfortunately, American support is no longer assured. Members of the Republican Party have spent months questioning the amount of military and economic aid for Ukraine. In two stopgap spending measures that kept the American government running, no additional aid for Ukraine was included.

The Biden administration and leading Democrats have decried this lack of legislative support. Failure to provide funding for Ukraine, could lead to a nightmare scenario where it would be unable to defend itself against further Russian offensives. Funding is being held up by Republicans who want a deal to secure America’s southern border. The current funding for Ukraine is due to run out soon. The upshot is that Ukraine is being held hostage to domestic politics in America. All Ukrainians can do is wait and see. They have no control over this situation or how it may turn out. They are at the mercy of forces they cannot control. Sooner or later, every nation experiences this. The question is whether they manage to survive it. 

Click here for: Exercises In Self-Defeatism – A World War I Parallel (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #359a)

From House of Honor to House of Horrors – Memorializing Lenin & Stalin in Tampere (The Lenin Museum #3)

For such a small institution, the Lenin Museum in Tampere played host to several important Soviet dignitaries during the Cold War. These included Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, as well as the first man in space, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. They came to see where Lenin and Stalin had their first fateful meeting at the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party conference in December 1905. That meeting was the beginning of a relationship that shaped the lives of millions, often for the worst. Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gagarin, were all products of the system Lenin created and Stalin solidified. Each felt compelled to make a pilgrimage to the Lenin Museum in Tampere to see where it all started. They would not be the only ones.

Fellow travelers – Exhibit at the Lenin Museum (Credit: Trotskists)

Prime Destination – Traveling to Tampere
For Soviet officials, the Lenin Museum was viewed as one of the foundational sites of the Soviet state due to the few days Lenin and Stalin spent together at the conference. That meeting would have been all but forgotten if they had not gone onto lead the Russian Revolution and found the Soviet Union. The Tampere Worker’s Hall where the meeting occurred became a prime destination for tens of thousands of Soviet citizens. Those visiting Finland could not pass up the opportunity for a visit to the museum, even though it was in a provincial Finnish city 170 kilometers from the capital city of Helsinki. The museum also was a useful tool for the Finns to cultivate a positive relationship with the Soviet Union. It was essential for Finland to keep the Soviet Union at a friendly distance during the Cold War.

In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, Finland’s chief foreign policy concern was how to keep the Soviet Union from another invasion of the country. Stalin was having his henchmen create communist puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe. The countries with the closest kinship to the Finns in the east, the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, had been absorbed into the Soviet Union. They were now at the mercy of Stalin’s iron fisted rule which included arrests, deportations and murders. Finland was in a similar precarious position with few reliable allies. The rest of Europe was too weak to intervene The United States was busy downsizing its military and had to formulate a coherent Cold War policy. If Stalin had decided that occupying Finland would be in the Soviet interest no one was going to stop him.

More than a memory – Sign for the Lenin Museum in Tampere (Credit: M62)

Paying Tribute – A Form of Finlandization
The only way for the Finns to safeguard their independence was to cultivate better relations with the Soviet Union. Their overarching goal was to keep their independence while sidestepping another Soviet invasion like the one that sparked the Winter War in 1939. Finnish officials believed that the creation of a Lenin Museum inside the Tampere Worker’s Hall could help achieve this goal. The idea, while quixotic, was also quite clever. The museum would show that Finland respected the Soviet heritage in their country. Even if that legacy had been fraught with conflict in the form of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the Winter War in 1939 and the Continuation War from 1941 -44.

In a sense, the Lenin Museum was a form of paying tribute to the Soviet Union. Rather than solely rely upon agreeable trade relations and a foreign policy that addressed Soviet concerns, the Finns offered other forms of tribute. They hoped that appeasing the Soviet Union could keep the peace. This was aligned with Finlandization, a Cold War policy where the Finns agreed to remain neutral and gave preferential treatment to the Soviets. One way to do this was by memorializing a place that was the scene of a foundational event in Soviet history. This was a clever idea, no matter how distasteful it may have been to the Finns who had opposed communism and Soviet imperial tendencies. No one wanted another war with the Soviets. The Lenin Museum helped cultivate a positive relationship. To this end, the Finns went so far as to open the museum on April 22, 1946, which also happened to be Lenin’s birthday.

Interior decoration – Lobby in the Tampere Workers Hall (Credit: Trogain)

Paying Tribute – A Form of Finlandization
The only way for the Finns to safeguard their independence was to cultivate better relations with the Soviet Union. Their overarching goal was to keep their independence while sidestepping another Soviet invasion like the one that sparked the Winter War in 1939. Finnish officials believed that the creation of a Lenin Museum inside the Tampere Worker’s Hall could help achieve this goal. The idea, while quixotic, was also quite clever. The museum would show that Finland respected the Soviet heritage in their country. Even if that legacy had been fraught with conflict in the form of the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the Winter War in 1939 and the Continuation War from 1941 -44.

In a sense, the Lenin Museum was a form of paying tribute to the Soviet Union. Rather than solely rely upon agreeable trade relations and a foreign policy that addressed Soviet concerns, the Finns offered other forms of tribute. They hoped that appeasing the Soviet Union could keep the peace. This was aligned with Finlandization, a Cold War policy where the Finns agreed to remain neutral and gave preferential treatment to the Soviets. One way to do this was by memorializing a place that was the scene of a foundational event in Soviet history. This was a clever idea, no matter how distasteful it may have been to the Finns who had opposed communism and Soviet imperial tendencies. No one wanted another war with the Soviets. The Lenin Museum helped cultivate a positive relationship. To this end, the Finns went so far as to open the museum on April 22, 1946, which also happened to be Lenin’s birthday.

A Love-Hate Relationship – Preserving Lenin’s Legacy In Tampere (The Lenin Museum #2)

The Lenin Museum in Tampere has a name that does not quite live up to the history it preserves. The museum’s fame rests upon it being the location for the first ever meeting between Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. Their meeting took place during a conference for the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1905. Attaching only Lenin’s name to the museum could be viewed as a mistake, but that was done on purpose. Lenin is a benign figure in Finland, Stalin the very opposite. The same holds true for their reputations in Eastern Europe and the successor states to the Soviet Union. While the Lenin Museum was created to preserve the setting of Lenin and Stalin’s historic meeting, most would rather forget Stalin’s involvement.

Going postal – Lenin on a stamp with the Tampere Workers’ Hall (Credit: USSR Post)

Murderous Intent – Lenin Versus Stalin
Somewhere along the path of the Soviet Union’s journey to the dustbin of history, Josef Stalin became a much more reviled figure than Vladimir Lenin. Much of this has to do with Stalin’s murderous purges, development of the Gulag system, and role in the creation of manmade famines. Despite the tens of millions who died because of Stalin’s policies, he was still revered by most Soviet citizens at the time of his death in 1953 for his role in leading it to victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Most tried to forget that Stalinist repression had grown even worse after the war and did not subside until he died. A mere three years after Stalin’s death, one of his main henchmen, Nikita Khrushchev, gave the so called “Secret Speech” which denounced Stalin’s crimes against the Soviet people and the cult of personality which enabled him.

From that point forward, Stalin became a reprehensible historical figure for many Soviet citizens, a mass murdering despot who developed the Soviet Union by breaking the backs of its citizenry. Lenin on the other hand still is seen as a much more palatable figure. An ideologue, whose political program may have been deadly and disastrous, but who genuinely wanted to make life better for the masses. This naïve view of Lenin persists, despite reams of historical evidence that the policies he promoted led to the deaths of millions and set the Soviet Union on a violent trajectory that provided fertile ground for Stalin’s murderous policies. The more moderated view of Lenin as compared to Stalin can also be found in Finland for historical reasons.

The killers – Lenin & Stalin together in the pre-revolutionary period

Against All Odds – Finland’s Independent Streak
Finland was the one nation that got away from the Soviet Union. First, they were able to use the chaos caused by the Russian Revolution to escape from the clutches of Bolshevism. This was done with a major assist from German forces in helping the anti-communist side win the Finnish Civil War in 1918. During the interwar period, Finland was in a very dangerous geopolitical position. The forces of communism and fascism threatened its budding democracy. This delicate balancing act became impossible by the late 1930’s as the Soviet Union coveted parts of Finnish territory it felt was integral to their own security. Despite Soviet attempts to impose a one-sided agreement on the Finns, they rebuffed the efforts of Stalin and his foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov to force territorial concessions. Finland’s resistance exploded into conflict when the Soviets invaded in 1939 starting the Winter War.

Against incredible odds, the Finnish Army gave the Red Army more than they could handle, inflicting a series of stinging defeats on the Soviets despite being vastly outnumbered. After changing commanders and tactics, the Red Army was able to bring massive forces to bear on the battlefield and forced the Finns back to the negotiating table. This resulted in territorial concessions, but only for a limited time. After Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Finns joined in and managed to take back the territory they had recently lost. Known as the Continuation War, Finland was unable to keep their gains when the Soviets went back on the offensive later in the war. Finally, the Finns agreed to an armistice and a negotiated settlement. They ended up losing a large part of Karelia which had once made up most of eastern Finland. Nevertheless, Finland had managed to escape the Soviet grasp with their independence intact.

Together again – Lenin & Stalin in the early 1920’s

Deft Diplomacy – A Smart Move
One of the main reasons Finland developed The Lenin Museum was simple, it was a relatively easy way to appease Soviet officials. Finland may not have been a fellow communist nation, but the Soviets viewed it as cautiously friendly and certainly not hostile. The basis for Finland’s policy was a combination of self-interest and self-preservation. To maintain their sovereignty, Finland had no other choice but to accommodate the Soviet interests. They could not afford to alienate a much larger neighboring country that had shown in the past a willingness to invade Finland if necessary. The Lenin Museum in Finland turned out to be a useful diplomatic device. One that ensured the Soviet Union was shown the respect they demanded. In this regard, creating and developing The Lenin Museum was a smart move. Just how smart would become apparent when Soviet leaders and citizens came by the thousands to visit it.

Click here for: From House of Honor to House of Horrors – Memorializing Lenin & Stalin in Tampere (The Lenin Museum #3)

The First Time – Lenin & Stalin In Tampere (The Lenin Museum Part #1)

In any long-term relationship between two people, their first meeting will eventually be looked upon with either fondness or disdain. The importance of that relationship to their lives will inform how the initial meeting is remembered. If it resulted in a happy marriage, a successful business, creative or political partnership then the memories will be positive ones. If it resulted in divorce, bankruptcy, ruined lives or careers then the memories will be tinged with regret. Every interpersonal relationship has an either/or quality. Either it changed lives for better or worse. The roots of future success or failure are sometimes apparent at a first meeting and sometimes they are not.

When it comes to the inaugural meeting between two famous historical figures there is a tendency to look back at it as a harbinger of things to come. This is especially true when both were unknown at the time. The importance of the first meeting may not have been anything more than establishing an initial relationship, but because of what happens in the future a first meeting may be ascribed an importance which would otherwise be lacking. Such is the case with the first meeting between Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, Famous for their role in spreading communism and misery to millions, the pair’s importance as world historical figures is undisputed. The first meeting between these two seminal figures who would go on to create, shape and lead the Soviet Union began not as one might expect in Russia proper, but in Finland which was then part of the Russian Empire.

First Encounter – Painting of Lenin & Stalin in Tampere (Credit: Brendel Matyas)

The Unknown City – A Lack of Recognition
Tampere is not a name that immediately comes to mind when one thinks of cities in northern Europe. The second largest city in Finland, with a quarter million inhabitants, is hardly known to anyone outside the country. Tampere does not have the name recognition of Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, or Stockholm. That is because it is not along any coastline unlike those famous Nordic capital cities. Instead, Tampere is located within the interior of western Finland. Unless you are Finnish it is not really on the way to anywhere. That did not keep it from coming across my radar when I was looking for cheap flights from Budapest to see other places in remoter reaches of Eastern Europe. Depending upon the geographical and geopolitical perspective, Finland might be considered as part of Eastern Europe. Getting to it is not easy, but fortunately there is an affordable option. Ryanair is one of only three airlines that fly to Tampere and the only low cost one. Even then, Ryanair does not have flights during the winter to the city. That is not surprising since most potential visitors do not want to experience a cold, dark Finnish winter.

I have yet to visit Tampere, but if I ever do my top priority will be a visit to The Lenin Museum. The museum is obscure, despite the importance it holds in the story of Lenin and Stalin. It was the setting for a 1905 conference of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). At that time, the building was the Tampere Workers’ Hall. It offered a relatively safe place for a meeting of the party’s Bolshevik faction. Despite still being part of the Russian Empire, the Grand Duchy of Finland enjoyed a greater degree of autonomy then other parts of the empire. Because the meeting’s participants did not need a passport to visit Tampere, it was chosen to host the conference. No Tsarist troops would be in the city to cause difficulties for attendees to the city. Local administrative officials were sympathetic to the RSDLP’s ideals.

Looking forward – At the Lenin Museum in Tampere (Credit: Trotskists)

People’s House – Meeting of the Like Minded
The city turned out to be an inspired choice for another reason. In the early 20^th century, Tampere was the most heavily industrialized city in Finland and a hotbed of sentiment for labor movements. The hall in which the meeting would be held reflected this. It had been constructed five years earlier as a People’s House, which acted as culture and leisure centers for the working class. As industrialization spread, so did places for workers to get together and share ideas, some of which were revolutionary in nature. People’s Houses cropped up in several cities of the Russian Empire beginning in the late 19th century. The imperial capital at St. Petersburg already had twenty of them by the time Tampere’s was constructed.

As with so many events that occurred during the early years of Bolshevism, details of what transpired at the RSDLP meeting are cloaked in a combination of myth and mystery. No minutes exist for the meeting which was held in the last week of December 1905. The only sources are recollections many years after the fact by participants. These are dominated by Josef Stalin whose unreliable memoirs informed accounts of the historic meeting. Stalin mentioned his first impression of Lenin as physically unimpressive, at least compared to the image Stalin had in mind of a towering figure. Stalin also stated that he was taken aback by Lenin’s punctuality, as he arrived at the meeting on time. Keeping people waiting was a psychological ploy Stalin would use throughout his time as leader of the Soviet Union.

Meeting place – Tampere Workers’ Hall (Credit: Trogain)

Iconic Status – Mythical Figures
Stalin was intensely interested in Lenin’s behavior. In particular, he noted how Lenin was able to achieve a presence without being physically imposing. This was a trait Stalin would come to share with him. One thing Stalin did not share was Lenin’s affability. He noted how Lenin greeted and chatted with the other attendees. He did not try to impose himself upon the others with anything other than his political principles. Lenin’s demeanor conveyed the idea that he was first among equals. Stalin would become known for quite the opposite. Throughout his life Stalin was often rude and brutal to fellow party members. In his memoirs, Stalin said that only upon later reflection did he recognize the meaning of Lenin’s behavior in Tampere. His modesty mirroring the movement he represented.

It is not surprising that Stalin’s recollections of the meeting do not align with other accounts of their historic first meeting. There seems to have been major disagreements between the two about Bolshevik strategy regarding involvement in the newly created Russian Duma (Parliament). Such disagreements would be marginalized after Lenin’s death as Stalin imposed his narrative on the early days of the Bolshevik movement. Lenin had yet to achieve the larger-than-life persona that would give him iconic status. That status would rise to the level of deification during Stalin’s regime. It was also one of the main reasons that the Tampere Workers’ Hall would eventually play host to the Lenin Museum.

Click here for: A Love-Hate Relationship – Preserving Lenin’s Legacy In Tampere (The Lenin Museum #2)

Collateral Damage – The Fate of Nagorno-Karabakh (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #357)

It is a geopolitical cliche to say that “Power abhors a vacuum”, though that often turns out to be true. When one power recedes, another will eventually step in to fill the gap. This usually happens sooner rather than later. A power vacuum is in the process of being filled in Nagorno-Karabakh, a part of Azerbaijan that has been de facto Armenian territory since the early 1990’s. Nagorno-Karabakh is being ethnically cleansed of its ethnic Armenian inhabitants. After Azerbaijani forces blockaded the Lachin Corridor which connected Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, the territory’s 130,000 ethnic Armenian inhabitants were starved into submission.

In the meantime, Russia which previously was the protecting power for ethnic Armenians in the territory has kept silent. This is largely the by-product of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have become the latest collateral damage of that conflict. This is a striking example of Russia’s retreat from what was once its near abroad. There are likely to be many more changes in the balance of power throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia as Russia’s influence wanes. This will have ramifications for decades to come.

Saying goodbye – Armenians preparing to leave Nagorno-Karabakh

Strained Situation – Armenians & Turks
Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine; the Kremlin has neglected their interests in several places which were once part of their sphere of influence. One of these places is Armenia, a nation that seems to be forever embattled. The Armenians have suffered at the hands of the Turks and Russians for centuries. Russia has often turned out to be the lesser of two evils. As such, Armenia has relied upon Russia’s protection since the Soviet Union collapsed. They had little choice. The landlocked, mountainous nation is surrounded by neighbors who will never be their allies. The biggest and most famous of these is Turkey. Armenian-Turkish relations are informed by the question of genocide.

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. The Armenians were made scapegoats by the Ottoman government for its failures in the initial phase of World War I. This was done to distract from the disastrous Ottoman war effort. The targeting of Armenians has been recognized by many western nations as genocide. Turkey, as successor to the Ottomans, denies this accusation. They state that any killings happened due to the chaos of war. This long running imbroglio has resulted in relations between Armenia and Turkey being either contentious or non-existent. A prime example of their dysfunctional relationship is that the border between the two countries has been closed since 1993. This has hurt landlocked Armenia much more than Turkey.

Contentious situation – Map showing the location of Nagorno-Karabakh

Russia Retreats – An Imbalance of Power
The strained relations between Armenia and Turkey manifested themselves in Turkish support for its fellow ethnic Turks in Azerbaijan. This has meant that traditionally Armenia and Russia were on one side, with Azerbaijan and Turkey on the other. It made for an uneasy peace and at times, full-blown war. Azerbaijan and Armenia have been at each other’s throats since the early 1990’s when they fought a war over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, home to a large ethnic Armenian population. The Armenians gained control of the territory. There was one big problem though, Nagorno-Karabakh’s location within Azerbaijan. This meant that the territory’s only connection to Armenia was through what is known as the Lachin Corridor.

Nagorno-Karabakh became a sort of state within a state, supported by Armenia through what would become an increasingly tenuous link. The territory became a wound that festered in Azerbaijan. The Azeris dreamed of the day they could take back what they felt was their territory all along. In more recent years, the Azeris took to building up their armed forces with Turkish assistance. Money was not a problem since the economy of Azerbaijan is boosted by oil and gas revenue. Armenia is a poor and landlocked state, whereas Azerbaijan had the natural and fiscal resources to modernize their military. In 2018, Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war over Nagorno-Karabakh. The Kremlin did not stop it as they would have done in the past. The Armenians were left to fend for themselves. They did not stand a chance against the Azeris and their well-equipped military.

The only thing keeping the Azeris from taking back Nagorno-Karabakh in the past was Russian support for Armenia. This support began to ebb after protests in 2018 replaced a pro-Kremlin Armenian government with one headed by the pro-western Nikol Pashinyan. Vladimir Putin has one clear principle above all others in Russia’s near abroad. He will not support any government that comes to power through a popular revolt, especially a pro-western one. This left Armenia isolated when Azerbaijan attacked in 2018. The Azeris came out on the winning side and while they did not regain control of Nagorno-Karabakh, their success showed the potential for that to happen in the not-so-distant future.

Speed trap – Armenians fleeing Nagorno-Karabakh

Offensive Mentality – Azerbaijan In The Ascendant
The future arrived faster than expected when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s support for Armenia continued to dwindle. Russia has not had the inclination nor the resources to protect Armenia. The Azeris saw their opportunity and pounced by blockading the Lachin Corridor. This denied food, medicine, and other supplies to the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. The only hope for the 120, 000 Armenians living there was a Russian peacekeeping force which subsequently did nothing but stand by and watch the situation unfold. Distracted by the war in Ukraine, the western world also failed to provide support to the Armenians. The Azeris went on the attack in a one-day war that gave them complete control of Nagorno-Karabakh. They have now wrested complete control of the territory from the Armenians. The territory’s inhabitants are fleeing to Armenia.

Reports of human rights abuses by Azerbaijani military forces against Armenians have filtered out. All the while, Russia has looked on with indifference. In Armenia, Pashinyan’s political career is hanging by a thread as disenchantment with his government is now widespread. Putin must be pleased with this situation since he despises Pashinyan’s pro-western leanings. Losing Nagorno-Karabakh is a tremendous blow for Armenia, one that could bring the government down and lead to further territorial encroachment by Azerbaijan. This would cause chaos and further destabilize the region. Azerbaijan is now in the ascendant. Turkey has stepped in to fill the power vacuum. Armenia is the big loser, but so is Russia. The Kremlin no longer has any control over the situation. Their influence is fleeting, but so is everything in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Click here for: Loss of Control – Ukraine’s Precarious Situation (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #358)

Loss of Control – Ukraine’s Precarious Situation (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #358)

Differing Perspectives – Bakhmut vs. Southern Front (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #356d)

On his recent trip to the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky worked to boost support for Ukraine’s war against Russia. The visit was vital to keep critical supplies of weapons flowing to Ukrainian forces. It could not have come soon enough. Support from conservatives in the House of Representatives has been ebbing for quite some time. Ukraine’s difficulty in breaking through Russian defensive lines in the current counteroffensive has given the American hard right ammunition to sow greater opposition to the war. This is of great concern to anyone who realizes just how important it is for Ukraine to win the war. Fortunately, the majority of America’s political and military leadership are in favor of continued support for Ukraine. That support has generally come with very few strings attached, but the Pentagon does have some misgivings over Ukraine’s current military strategy.

Sign of progress – Ukrainian tank near Bakhmut

Symbolism & Vindication – The Push For Bakhmut
One thing that some may have missed during Zelensky’s trip to Washington was his announcement that by the end of this year Ukrainian forces would recapture Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine. Such a victory would hold special symbolism for the Ukrainian president. He is rumored to have become fixated with Bakhmut as the fight for it became ever more ferocious until Russian forces finally captured and occupied it in the late spring. Now Bakhmut has once again become a focal point for Zelensky. Ukrainian forces are working their way back towards recapturing it. By doing so, they would be reversing Russia’s lone victory of the war since July 2022. It would strike a major blow to Russian morale, but Bakhmut is of limited strategic value.

The Russians found this out after capturing it. What did they gain by capturing Bakhmut? That question is difficult to answer. Perhaps a minor and short-lived boost to morale. The victory was symbolic, but that did nothing to turn the war in Russia’s favor. If anything, it further entrenched stalemate. Their victory at Bakhmut was not nearly as important as the thousands of troops they lost in the process. Those losses have severely limited Russia’s potential to go back on the offensive. Bakhmut’s effect on military operations is not just limited to Russia. The same thing on a lesser scale could be happening to Ukraine. Some think it may already have.

Earlier this year some in the Pentagon questioned whether Ukraine should be expending so many men and material to keep Russia from capturing Bakhmut as long as possible. The Ukrainian leadership’s response was that the defense of Bakhmut degraded Russia’s reservoir of soldiers and supplies. That was true, but Ukraine lost a large number of experienced soldiers in the process. Those soldiers would have been extremely valuable in Ukraine’s current counteroffensive. Whether fighting to retake Bakhmut is the best use of Ukraine’s resources is a question worth pondering. The Pentagon certainly has been thinking about this.

Coming to America – Volodymyr Zelensky & his wife Olena arrive in Washington

Problematic Paradoxes – Two Too Many Choices
The Pentagon is said to prefer that Ukraine focus solely on the southern front in Zaporizhzhia province. For quite some time there has been consternation among American military strategists in the Pentagon over Ukraine pouring resources into the battle for Bakhmut. They believe that Ukraine already made a mistake by fighting so hard to defend Bakhmut in the spring. As the current counteroffensive has proved less successful than expected, this has added weight to that argument. Exacerbating the disagreement is the current Ukrainian effort to retake Bakhmut which consists of little more than ruins. There are also pressing matters in another part of the Eastern Front. The Russians have been conducting limited offensive operations in the Kupyansk area with some limited success. The Ukrainian troops trying to retake Bakhmut could be utilized to ensure any Russian advance in that area is stopped and hold the line elsewhere. This would allow a greater effort in the south where any breach of Russian lines could gain momentum.

The Ukrainian leadership’s thinking is that taking Bakhmut would send a clear message that Russia cannot sustain any success. This would damage the morale of Russian forces. Low morale has been an issue for the Russians since the full-scale invasion began. Amid another grim, gray, and cold winter, the loss of Bakhmut would only exacerbate existing issues. This makes sense from the Ukrainian perspective, but there is one big problem. Since it is difficult to quantify morale, there is no telling whether retaking Bakhmut would have the desired effect. The only clear way of measuring morale is in desertions or the collapse of Russian lines. Despite being poorly led and supplied while incurring hundreds of thousands of casualties, Russian forces have dug in and continued to fight. How much longer is anyone’s guess? The Russians often seem to fight better when on the edge of disaster. Whereas they perform poorly when the odds are in their favor. This paradox makes it difficult to predict the current campaign’s outcome.

Line of control – Current areas of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces
(Credit: British Defense Intelligence)

Emotion Versus Reason – Strategic Sensibilities
Bakhmut is a powerful symbol, one that has risen to near mythic proportions well beyond recapturing it will do little to advance the ultimate Ukrainian goal of expelling all Russian troops from their territory. The Pentagon’s perspective seems more strategically sensible. Nevertheless, Ukrainian leadership has scored many military successes throughout the war based on sound strategy and tactics. They have also made several mistakes, as any leadership will do when forced to learn as they go.  Emotion and symbolism play a role in decisions, more so for the combatants than their supporters. 

Ukrainian leadership must weigh the resources available versus the challenges they face along an 850-kilometer-long active front. A breakthrough on the southern front and a Ukrainian drive to either the Sea of Azov or Black Sea coastline would send shockwaves through Russia’s political and military leadership. It would put Russia’s most critical supply lines in Crimea within range of Ukrainian artillery fire. This would isolate the peninsula as well as many Russian forces stranded west of where the breakthrough might occur in southern Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky might like the idea of Ukrainian forces retaking Bakhmut, but a breakthrough in the south would go a long way towards winning the war and ensuring that Russian troops are expelled from Ukraine.

Coming soon: The Most Difficult Decisions – Win, Lose or Draw in Ukraine (Russian Invasion of Ukraine #356c)

A Most Difficult Decision – Win, Lose or Draw in Ukraine (Russian Invasion of Ukraine #356c)

No one can deny that the stakes in the Ukraine-Russia war are extremely high. The current Ukrainian counteroffensive has raised them to a fever pitch as pressure builds on both the combatants and their supporters. This is a situation that very few foresaw arising and one that continues to defy predictions. If anyone a decade ago would have claimed that Eastern and Southern Ukraine would be the epicenters of a battle between western and eastern visions of the world no one would have believed them. What might have seemed at the time to be a regional problem has become a much larger issue where Europe and NATO have a great deal at stake.

On the move – American Abrams tanks heading to the frontlines in Ukraine

Decisions In The East – Drivers of Destiny
The United States is at the epicenter of support for Ukraine and as such, has the highest degree of influence on Ukraine. This influence has led to disagreements over war strategy. The current one between Ukraine and the Pentagon on where best to allocate Ukraine’s limited resources could be viewed as the usual rancor among allies, but the stakes are so high that the differing opinions cannot be discounted. The decisions that are being made now could heavily influence the war’s outcome and decide the path to victory, stalemate, or defeat for Ukraine.

So much has happened since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched by Russia on February 24, 2022, that it is important to understand how the current situation arose. A situation where a couple of places remote from the centers of geopolitical power have taken on an outsized importance that no one would have believed possible a couple of years ago. These areas are in and around the ruined city of Bakhmut and the Zaporizhzhia region of southern Ukraine.

Few could have found either of these areas on a map prior to the Ukraine-Russia war and even today, many continue to be unaware of their importance or the history from which they arose. Nothing less than the future of Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the international rules-based order are at stake. Getting to the current situation where Bakhmut and the Zaporizhzhia region became of the utmost importance took decades rather than years, months, or days. A short refresher course can provide some much-needed context.

Ties That Bind – Not Without A Fight
Since the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union collapsed over three decades ago, Europe had enjoyed a period of peace (the Yugoslav Wars were a notable exception) and increasing prosperity. This was particularly true for Eastern Europe. A region that had suffered catastrophic conflicts and the worst excesses of ideologically inspired totalitarian regimes during the 20th century, was finally able to escape its tumultuous past. Eastern Europe enjoyed greater integration with the rest of Europe, the byproduct was political freedom and economic dynamism. The future of the region had not seemed this bright since before the First World War.

To be sure, there were outliers that did not share in Eastern Europe’s post-Cold War peace dividend or promise of prosperity. These included parts of the western Balkans, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The last four had been constituent parts of the Soviet Union during most of the 20th century. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Russia returned to its historical role as the imperialist heavyweight. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia was not going to let these newly independent nations go without a fight.

The Kremlin offered a combination of inducements and punishments to control those nations which constituted their European near abroad and which were neither European Union nor NATO members. Russia often resorted to subversive measures to exercise control. These included ensuring the Kremlin puppet won elections and disinformation campaigns aimed at any political entity professing western values. Most of these measures were covert, but those nations which most fiercely resisted (Georgia and Ukraine) were subjected to the most extreme overt measure, a shooting war.

In Ukraine’s case, it was the people’s resistance to Russian pressure which the Kremlin found intolerable. The upshot was the Kremlin’s facilitation of a war with Ukraine beginning in 2014 and which exploded into full-scale warfare a year and a half ago. That war has defied expectations. The consensus was that Ukraine did not stand a chance. Ukrainians proved the doubters wrong by accomplishing minor miracles on the battlefield. This then raised expectations that Ukraine could win the war outright. Those expectations have led to questions about whether Ukraine is pursuing the right strategy and tactics.

The war is now at a critical juncture, one which could decide whether Ukraine will be able to achieve its ultimate goal of taking back all the territory illegally occupied by Russia. Specifically, in campaigns for Bakhmut and on the southern front in Zaporizhzhia Province. What does or does not happen in those two places will go a long way in deciding the fate of Ukraine, the future of Europe and American foreign policy there.

Hard targets – Ruins in Bakhmut

Second Guesses – Murmurs of Discontent
Concerns over Ukraine’s military strategy by the Pentagon began to appear in the media earlier this year. Other allies have also expressed their misgivings at times, but American support is the most crucial for Ukraine to have a fighting chance of winning the war. The disagreements have centered around Ukraine’s counteroffensive which has not been as successful as many predicted. Prior to the counteroffensive, Ukraine’s allies believed that with western training, tactics and weapons, Ukrainian forces would be able to break through Russian lines and achieve the same kind of sweeping victory they did in Kharkiv province last autumn. That has not come close to happening.

The counteroffensive ran up against heavy resistance. Ukrainian forces took lots of casualties in the initial phase of the offensive. This led the Ukrainians to abandon the western tactic of combined arms warfare because it was proving too costly, especially since they did not have the needed weaponry and were using inexperienced forces. The change in tactics to smaller numbers of troops inching their way forward has proven more successful, but at a slow rate. Patience in the west has begun to wane with criticism and angst becoming louder.

Ukraine’s military leadership understands their forces better than outside observers, but that does not mean they always make the right decisions. While the counteroffensive slogs forward in Zaporizhzhia Province, hundreds of kilometers to the northeast, Ukrainian forces have been fighting to take back Bakhmut. The city is of limited strategic value, particularly in comparison to the southern front. This has led to enduring questions about Ukraine’s strategy. One of the greatest advocates of the strategy to retake Bakhmut is said to be Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky. 

Click here for: Differing Perspectives – Bakhmut vs. Southern Front (Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine #356d)

Resource Scarcity – Bakhmut vs. The Southern Front (Russian Invasion of Ukraine #356b)

Bakhmut continues to cast a long shadow. Many assumed it was over after Russian forces captured and occupied what was left of the city in the late spring. This turned out to be just the end of the beginning Ukrainian forces are now engaged in trying to recapture it. This has led to questions from Ukraine’s most important ally about its overall strategy. These questions are inextricably bound up with the Ukrainian counteroffensive operations on the southern portion of the front lines.

Forward progress – Ukrainian soldiers on the move

Less Is Not More – The Enduring Problem
It might be said that of all the problems Ukraine has encountered in fighting the war with Russia, the biggest one is quite simple. Ukraine does not have enough of the resources it needs to win the war. By no means is this problem insurmountable, but it is an obstacle, one that has been a constant throughout the war. It is also one that has reared its ugly head with increasing frequency as the war has dragged on.

The hard truth is that Ukraine does not have enough soldiers, enough weapons or enough money, the three most important factors in bringing about a victorious outcome in the war. Ukraine has a fighting chance because they have a highly motivated and courageous population that has shown an incredible amount of innovation and determination. This has allowed them to overcome a deficit in resources and potentially achieve an improbable victory. Both Ukrainian civilian and military personnel have shown a willingness to put their lives on the line while displaying what appears to external observers an almost superhuman resiliency. This is all the more impressive considering the indiscriminate violence of Russian aggression.

The Ukrainian war effort has been lauded by western political and military leaders, geopolitical analysts, traditional and social media outlets. These have been the major factor in shaping western views of the war. Because a majority of westerners believe that Ukraine is fighting a just war for its independence against a vile regime, many are hesitant to criticize Ukraine’s military strategy and tactics. This makes sense because those who understand that Ukraine’s fight is not just for its own independence, but also to uphold the rules based international order, do not want to undermine their war effort. 

Hard going – Village liberated by Ukrainian troops during the counteroffensive

Constructive Criticism – Dissenting Opinions
Criticism that is constructive should be welcomed even if it causes consternation. This has not always been the case. Criticisms are often met by Ukrainians and pro-Ukrainian westerners with the response that Ukraine’s political and military leadership know the best strategy and tactics to win the war. Their leadership has a track record of successful decision-making to support this argument. They have also borne the brutality of the battlefield and taken the casualties which demonstrate their willingness to make the greatest of sacrifices. This is worthy of westerners’ respect and admiration, but it should not be a reason to disregard dissenting voices on the best strategy and tactics to effect positive outcomes. Often the best decisions are made when differing views are taken into account. This can be hard to stomach and consensus difficult to reach. Nevertheless, diversity of opinions and perspectives should always be encouraged.

Dissenting views on military strategy and tactics have grown louder due to Ukraine’s understandable difficulty breaching the Surovikin Line. These are the three lines of Russian defenses named after their most competent commander who ironically has been relieved of his duties. In southern Ukraine, the Surovikin Line has presented a formidable barrier to the success of Ukrainian forces breaking through in what is the most strategically important sector of the war. The Russians have defied expectations by creating a defensive barrier that is as stout as anything seen in military affairs since World War II. Coupled with the fact that Ukrainian forces do not enjoy air superiority and the Russians fire eight rounds of artillery for every one Ukraine can deliver, it is not surprising that Ukrainian forces have struggled to gain ground. The ground they have gained has come at a greater cost than anticipated.

All parties involved in the war realize what is at stake on the southern front. If Ukrainian forces can breach the Surovikin Line (they have already broken through the first line) then that would put Russia’s most vital supply lines in Crimea under constant artillery attack. Just as importantly, if the Ukrainians can reach the coastline of either the Sea of Azov or the Black Sea, they would cut Russian forces in half. This would put the Russians in a dire situation, especially those in the western half. They would not have the ability to resupply while facing a barrier consisting of the Ukrainian military. 

Battling on – Ukrainian troops opening fire

Strategy or Symbolism – A Difficult Decision
Because success on this part of the front would go a long way towards Ukraine’s ultimately achieving victory in the war, western backers believe that Ukraine should focus their efforts in the south while holding the line elsewhere. Ukraine’s leadership largely agrees, but with one notable exception, they are pushing forward around Bakhmut in the hopes of recapturing that burned out hulk of a city by year’s end. Strategically, this makes little sense. Bakhmut is not where the war will be won or lost except in the sense that Ukraine could lose valuable men and material that would be put to better use on the southern part of the front. Symbolically, it is a much different story for Ukraine. 

Ukraine’s leadership, in particular Volodymyr Zelensky, are said by some to be fixated on the idea of retaking Bakhmut. To be sure, this would be a major blow to Russian morale. This has been the lone Russian victory in over a year. They expended the lives of thousands of their soldiers to capture Bakhmut. Ukraine will not expend as many lives fighting to take back Bakhmut, but they will lose enough that it could inhibit their push in the South. And this all flows from the fact that Ukraine does not have enough resources in manpower and material to take back Bakhmut without inhibiting operations in the south. Bakhmut would be tying down resources for a symbolic rather than a strategic victory. This would not only hurt Ukraine’s cause on the battlefield, but also lead to problems with American support. 

Click here for: The Most Difficult Decisions – Win, Lose or Draw in Ukraine (Russian Invasion of Ukraine #356c)