By Kris Osborn President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington D.C.) Initial indications seem to suggest that Russia’s massive and much anticipated large-scale offensive is faltering, experiencing setbacks and failing to achieve any of its immediate objectives.
Russia’s Large-Scale Offensive
Russia appears to be engaged in massive force consolidation, preparatory rocket attacks in advance of an incursion and a mobilization of mechanized vehicles, however several key war updates indicate that Russia’s initial offensive is stalling, if not failing. In particular, one potentially surprising observation detailed in an interesting brief published by the Institute of War says Russia appears to be lacking functional tanks and armored vehicles.
“The observed absence of several critical tank units suggests that the Russian military continues to struggle to replace equipment, especially tanks, lost during previous failed offensive operations. Russian forces almost certainly still have some reconstituted mechanized units in reserve, but the commitment of these limited reserves to the Luhansk Oblast frontline is unlikely to change the course of the ongoing offensive dramatically,” an ISW Brief from Feb. 19 states.
The ISW brief goes on to observe that Russia is using insufficiently “scaled” infantry and simply lacks the uncommitted reserves to fully “scale” the offensive.
This is quite significant and, perhaps upon closer examination, not surprising to an extent, given the likely condition of Russia’s aging fleet. Although Russia is listed as operating 12,566 tanks on Global Firepower, there may be questions about how many are now functional, maintained and operational.
The tenacity of Ukrainian soldiers, coupled with an effective use of ambush-style anti-armor weapons and tactics had a devastating, if even somewhat surprising, impact upon Russia’s initial invasion force. Perhaps this is one key reason why, when faced with a massive new Russian offensive against Ukraine, the Pentagon announced yet another large-scale $450 million infusion of Javelin anti-tank weapons, HIMARs rockets and 155mm artillery, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and tactical trucks, among other things.
These kinds of weapons are likely designed to help position Ukraine to have success against larger numbers of invading Russian vehicles such as tanks. Using terrain, bridges, narrow passageways and elevation to strike Russian tanks on the top where they are most vulnerable, Ukrainian forces wreaked havoc upon Russian armor. They may need to do the same, particularly given the pace at which they will receive impactful numbers of Abrams tanks and other heavy armor. Ultimately, in order to reclaim and hold territory, Ukrainians will need to “mass.”
Video Above: Pentagon 2.9B Ukraine Support Package
Certainly thousands of Russian tanks are likely decades old Soviet-era platforms unlikely to be well maintained or functional for modern warfare. Secondly, Russia has suffered devastating tank and armored vehicle losses due to successful Ukrainian hit-and-run-tactics, use of anti-armor weapons and disaggregated defensive maneuvering. An open-source intelligence cite called Oryx specifically documents the Russian tanks which were destroyed or damaged by Ukrainian attacks. Listing hundreds of destroyed Russian T-72s and T-80s, Oryx says 1,762 Russian tanks have been destroyed, 1,038 are damaged, 85 abandoned and 548 captured. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense reports that 3,316 tanks have been destroyed, a number which aligns to an extent with Oryx if it includes destroyed and damaged tanks. Added to this equation, Oryx and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense report that thousands more armored vehicles have been destroyed by the Ukrainians to include armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles.
This dynamic points to an interesting and significant window of opportunity for the Ukrainians, given that they are not likely to have enough heavy armor to “mass” and truly re-occupy territory in the near future. If the Ukrainians are able to leverage and call upon their successful, largely defense anti-armor tactics as they did against the initial invasion, perhaps they could slow down or even stop and destroy Russia’s large-scale mechanized advance until they get more armor.
The future of this war may lie in this somewhat as-of-yet-unanswered question….can the Ukrainians hold up against a larger Russian armored offensive until they can “mass” a larger mechanized force themselves? The evidence seems to suggest maybe yes, a likely reason why the Pentagon is fast-tracking more anti-armor weapons. Should Ukrainians use terrain, buildings, elevation and narrowly configured passageways to destroy Russian armored vehicles, as they did during Russia’s assault on Kyiv, they could very well succeed. At the same time, this does not preclude the need for NATO and the West to massively fast-track Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles to Ukraine.
Other factors likely explaining Russia’s poor initial performance in the offensive may pertain to ineffective Combined Arms Maneuver tactics, substandard logistical operations and poor morale. The initial comments from Western leaders regarding the Russian offensive seem to suggest some of these factors.
Speaking in Estonia with his counterpart, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the Russians were not performing well.
“Russia is continuing to introduce large numbers of troops into the theater. Those troops are ill-equipped and ill-trained and because of that they’re incurring a lot of casualties,” Austin said. “We expect that will continue,” according to a quote printed in an article by usnews.com
In effect, Western leaders are now quite clear that Russia’s attempted massive offensive is …. At least so far … going nowhere
The same US News report quotes British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace on BBC saying 97-percent of Russia’s Army is now inside Ukraine
“We haven’t actually seen this massing of a single force to punch through in a big offensive. We’ve just seen an effort to advance, and that has come at a huge cost to the Russian Army,” Wallace said.
Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox N
ews, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
