I've been on Twitter a lot this weekend watching the Ukraine invasion. There are a number of pro-Russian accounts tweeting either blatant chest-thumping propaganda about the powerful Russian military, or dishonest hand-wringing about Ukraine is doomed and should just surrender. Most of these propaganda tweets fall into some neat categories, which makes them suspect almost immediately. Let's look at them:
- The Russian military is very strong! It's a big military, no doubt. But it also has a lot of territory to defend, and it's created a lot of hostile enemies all around it. It also has serious industrial capacity and supply chain issues that make it very difficult to replace tanks, helicopters, and high-tech weapons it loses. Its munitions plants can crank out guns and ammo for those guns. Beyond that, it will take a long time for Russia to replace the weaponry it's lost. Corruption, too, is rife within the military. Parts have been sold off on the black market, and nobody knows how much of the armor and artillery Russia claims to have on paper actually is in working order. In other cases, the military has billed for weapons that never existed, with the manufacturer splitting the cost with the military. Last, estimates are that this invasion is costing $250M a day. That's a lot of money for a country that isn't operating on the basis of a default currency (like the U.S.), as well as a country facing crippling sanctions.
- Russia won in Grozny! Yeah, after more than three months. And Grozny was tiny compared to Kiev. Also, Grozny was the only military garrison in the country. The Ukrainian situation seems vastly different. The entire Ukrainian resistance doesn't collapse if Kiev is taken. The military command is very de-centralized. This is also why the constant hand-wringing whining that Kiev is under attack (!) is pointless. A "decapitation" strategy won't work in this case. Also, it's very possible for Ukraine to keep being supplied from the west by NATO allies -- not to mention well-developed networks of humanitarian aid that Chechnya lacked. Even if Kiev is levelled, street fighting could easily last for weeks and be very expensive for the Russian military. Last, Russia 'defeated' the Grozny resistance by tricking (lying to) Chechens into walking out of Grozny for a surrender. Instead, they were mercilessly wiped out by Russian troops and mines before they could surrender. It's doubtful this trick would work twice.
- Russia is just sending their untrained troops in first to soften up Ukraine. This is ridiculous. Everything about the logistics shows that Russia planned a campaign that would be wrapped up in about three days. You don't send in untrained troops for a "blitzkrieg" campaign. It's obvious that their supply lines were set up for a short three-day effort, and a "decapitation" that would leave any resistance crumbling. Instead, Russia has lost a lot of tanks, armored vehicles, and helicopters that they would need for a sustained campaign. Paratroops are not "untrained", and they've lost a lot of them. Highly-experienced units like the Chechen Kadyrov forces were sent in and wiped out by Ukraine. Likewise, Russian engineering units to replace bridges (not "untrained") were wiped out by air. It is true that a lot of untrained Russian conscripts have been captured or killed. But they're being allowed to call home and are being treated humanely, so this is just a big morale failure for the Russian military. If anything, it's the Russian military that's being "softened up", and the Ukrainian troops are quickly learning from the few casualties they've suffered.
- Just wait for the thermobarics! These are thermobaric shells that produce fire and consume oxygen around the target. These don't work well in open areas, as oxygen just floods in from the surrounding air. They're designed to defeat underground bunkers. Russia has a very limited supply of these shells, and no way to replace them when they're used. They're also vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, and need a steady supply of fuel to move the mobile platforms carrying the shells. This is the same problem they face with tanks and other armored vehicles: They can get in relatively far, but they can't be re-fuelled. It's child's play to blow up tankers carrying diesel along highways. The "thermobarics" narrative is mostly used by hand-wringers who pretend to be concerned about the potential devastation of such weapons, but who really are cheering for their use.
- People are fleeing Kiev! Of course, civilians are fleeing the city! They have a relatively safe evacuation route, a friendly Polish government to welcome them, and trains to move them efficiently. The whole idea of the invasion is that civilians would be trapped in Kiev by the "blitzkrieg", and that the city would be surrendered to avoid loss of life. Instead, Kiev is being methodically ceded to the invasion, forcing Russia to expend scarce missiles and troops on an empty city, with the inevitable Russian casualties of urban combat.
The bottom line is that Russia needed this to be a rapid invasion that replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet leadership. Kiev is not the prize Russia believes it to be. Military aid from NATO, while slow, will reach Ukrainian troops within a week. Humanitarian aid will flood the country. Russian money will be in short supply, and their troops will go hungry and unpaid. Russian supply lines will become increasingly tenuous. Russia doesn't have weeks, much less months like the Grozny siege required. The longer this goes on, the more anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles will end up in Ukrainian hands. And also, the more international volunteers will pour in -- well-equipped, highly-motivated, and well-trained by other militaries -- to dislodge Russians from their positions with RPGs and air support.
Russia assumed that Ukraine would fold quickly. That hasn't happened. If NATO aid had already arrived, Russian troops would be routed.
It should be very easy for the U.S. to openly provide non-lethal aid like food (MRE's), body armor, night-vision goggles, communication equipment, armored personnel carriers, field medical kits, solar panels with batteries, detailed maps, satellite comms, water purification supplies, and even things like handcuffs and leg irons for captured prisoners. This is easy stuff. Even Republicans would vote for it. If it's delivered in a timely manner, and distributed efficiently, it would turn the tide against Russian forces.
It's hard to imagine NATO intelligence services, and even non-aligned countries like Finland, passing up the chance to provide covert aid to Ukrainian forces. Russian leadership is always susceptible to bribes. Air-drops of ammo are always possible, and easy to accomplish.
The Russian army would bear the most significant cost of such a long-term war, followed by the air force.
The Russian military can't bear the financial costs of even a month-long conflict. That would be $7.5B they don't have. There isn't any pot of gold waiting for Russia if they take Ukraine. It's a largely agricultural country that would require extensive rebuilding after a war. There is no best-case scenario that works out in Russia's favor over the long-term. Its military would end up substantially weakened, its economy in a shambles, probably in huge debt to its main rival China. And China would likely demand naval support for their war on Taiwan.
Nothing good will come of this for Russia. Ukraine is not Chechnya. The leftist supporters of Russia will end up looking like fools, as will the Right throughout Europe and America.
