I thought you’d find Stephen Bryen’s piece at Asia Times, comparing Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk Oblast to the Battle of the Bulge near the end of World War II interesting:
Some Weapons and Strategy readers say that there is a strong resemblance between the current Kursk battle and the Battle of the Bulge, which raged in December 1944 and January 1945. It is a topic worth exploring.
Consistent with the advice of one of my college professors, here is the first “however”:
The Kursk offensive is quite tiny when compared with the massed armies in the Battle of the Bulge. At the start of Kursk the Ukrainians committed perhaps 1,000 troops and a modest complement of armor and artillery. Ukraine also used air defenses, including mobile patriot batteries, electronic warfare assets and a large number of drones.
Likewise, on the Russian side, there were only territorial units that did not have armor and lacked modern anti-tank weapons. As this is written the Russians have brought up Chechens and Wagnerites (now part of the regular Russian army). There are reports that larger forces are also on their way to Kursk, drawn from reserves and not from units fighting elsewhere in Ukraine.
As of August 11, most of the incursion has been “stabilized” meaning that, for the most part, Ukrainian assaults are being countered successfully.The current battle scene in Kursk does not resemble the Bulge. The Nazi aim was to break the US and British armies, to split them, and drive to the sea. The Ukrainian aim is to hold Russian territory for as long as possible. In both cases the aim was negotiations, but the Nazis hoped to defeat the Allies while the Ukrainians have no such hope regarding the Russians.
We do not yet know if Ukraine will be able to sustain the Kursk attack. If the country throws in more forces it will not have the advantage it enjoyed in the first phase of the battle. So the Ukrainian gamble is just that and carries strategic and political risk. In that sense, the Battle of the Bulge and Kursk share a common theme.
I have no idea what the strategic significance on Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory is and I doubt that Dr. Bryen does, either. Maybe it is, as he says, to bring Russia to the bargaining table. Maybe it’s something else. Maybe it’s to encourage the West to provide more military and other assistance to Ukraine.
My concern with it is the possibility that the strategic intent is to draw NATO forces directly into Ukraine’s war with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, presumably in response to a brutal counter-attack by Russia.
Update
Here are some of the possible objectives of the invasion I’m reading about:
- disrupt supplies to Donbas
- impel the Russians to redeploy force from elsewhere to Kursk
- open attack routes for drones
- test new tactics
in addition to the two mentioned above.
I think a better analogy is closer to US history — the Gettysburg campaign.
Take away the moral dimension of the Civil War (which is huge), but strategic context to this offensive is similar.
The weaker side is facing the stronger side which is 3 / 4x bigger in population and industrial capacity. The war is in its 3rd year, and while the smaller side has mostly held up its own, its been attritted down and in one theater (the Western one in the Civil War, the Southern one in this war), looks about to suffer a strategic defeat.
On your concern; well lets say it isn’t going to make negotiations or post-conflict tensions easier. All the current and likely next generation of Russian leaders will consider is that Ukraine armed with Western weapons has the motive and capability to invade Russia. Unless NATO can make the Russian eat **** again, that will drive Russian red lines.
” next generation of Russian leaders will consider is that Ukraine armed with Western weapons has the motive and capability to invade Russia.”
Seriously? I guess if the Russians decide to do away with all of their satellites and airplanes and drones and disband their military Ukraine could have a shot at it.
Steve
Invade doesn’t mean they Ukraine wins a war.
From a Russian view, this demonstrates NATO has no red lines when it comes to attacking Russia. We started from no weapons to Ukraine, to no offensive weapons, to no heavy offensive weapons, to no jets, to not allow weapons to be used in recognized Russian territory, to as long as its counter-attacking Russians involved in a front attacking Ukraine, to what; “as long as Russia is being hostile to Ukraine”?
That was already what the Russians believed and not without cause. It’s one of the reasons this war is happening at all.
You are buying into the Russian propaganda. The European countries can’t invade Russia in any meaningful way. There is no Germany with a large, recently built up force. The US could maybe in theory invade but at no time have we moved enough troops there to be an offensive threat. The logistic issues are huge and it’s nothing like Iraq where you had easy ocean access. The reason for invading Ukraine as Putin told us was to remake the empire and as he didn’t tell us was for economic reasons.
Steve
The Ukrainian has been stopped, and the Russians are now mopping up the Ukrainian survivors.
There has been some speculation that the Ukrainians wanted to capture the nearby NPP as a bargaining chip. Other speculation (very speculative) is that the Russians baited a trap to draw off Ukrainian troops from the Donbas. Whatever. The Ukrainians have lost another whole brigade.
The US is running all these operations, and US military incompetence is being fully revealed.
No, I am reporting what the Russians think. These NATO countries that were never invaded by Russia or the Soviet Union invaded the Soviet Union in the 20th century: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy. The Soviet Union DID invade Poland, the Baltic countries (in the 18th century), and Germany after Germany had invaded the Soviet Union and killed 20-27 million Soviet citizens. It is unclear to me what you suppose the Soviet Union should have done to conclude World War II.
I think you are regurgitating Russophobe propaganda. I don’t honestly know what happened in Eastern Europe after World War II. I’m not an expert in Polish politics and history. I do know that the narrative in the West is that the Soviets occupied those countries. What I am unsure about is whether Polish communists were on the Soviet side or what happened to the Polish government-in-exile. First, they abandoned Poland to the Germans. Then they abandoned Poland to the Soviets. At some point doesn’t some responsibility fall on the Poles?
I actually agree with you that Germany, France, Sweden, etc. are unlikely to invade Russia. Why do we insist on antagonizing the Russians? The Clinton Administration went out of its way to antagonize Russia—they bragged about it, it’s a matter of public record. Isn’t having a dozen CIA stations on the Polish-Belarus border a sign of U. S. antagonism?
Another factor to consider is this is the 2nd time within almost a year that an incursion into Russian territory had met with an ineffective initial response. While Prigozhin’s “March of Justice” was handled diplomatically and no doubt Russia will expel this Ukrainian invasion eventually, one wonders how each would have faired if one had different intentions and the other had more power behind it. Someone out there is taking notes, and it’s not just NATO.
I suspect that what you’re referring to I would refer to as “the Russian way of war”. What you’ve just described was Germany’s experience during World War II. And Napoleon’s experience more than a century before that. They don’t approach war the way the U. S. does. That’s true in dozens of ways.
1) You could, if you want, read up on what Russia did in Ukraine both before and after WW2 and the same goes for Poland and the Baltics. Its ugly. About that WW 2 is it OK to remember that Russia was initially a German ally and took part in invading Poland, claiming their half? We arent talking about a bunch of innocents. Maybe mention that the US played a large part in helping them defend themselves?
2) The facts are that the European countries are nowhere near able to mount a real invasion of Russia. They would only be able to do that with help from the US. For the US to be able to make it happen would require a prolonged logistical effort they we would in now way be able to hide. However, if for some reason we decided to do that and we could magically disable nuclear weapons around the world Russia controlling Ukraine wouldn’t make any real difference.
If Germany and France went into prolonged war material production along with the US then Russia might have valid concerns. However, all 3 of those countries, as you have repeatedly noted, have failed to do anything close to that. Indeed, it is only the invasion of Ukraine that has gotten some minimal response. So for some reason you continue to think the Russians/Putin are stupid. They know they are safe from invasion. What they want is their old economic dominance. It’s a lot more useful on the international stage to claim you are invading out of some made up security fears than to say you want economic dominance.
Steve
“They would only be able to do that with help from the US. For the US to be able to make it happen would require a prolonged logistical effort they we would in now way be able to hide”
The Ukrainians are being directed based on data from US ISR, their comms is starlink, I see a lot of bradleys and even Abrams in Kursk. Ukrainian air defense is quarterbacked by patriots. The US pumped something close to $200 billion into the war. This war has validated Russian paranoia in every way.
Here is the historical truth about war in Eurasia. It isn’t difficult to invade Russia and cause a lot of damage. There isn’t natural defensible terrain from the borders of Poland all the way to the Urals; just flat land. What is difficult if not close to impossible is invading Russia to win a war — you’ll never be able to destroy Russia’s war industry or its field armies given the vastness of the territory.
The dilemma that faced Napoleon and the Germans will bedevil the Ukrainians pretty soon. Not having achieved strategic results, they can (a) attack deeper into Russian territory using mobile warfare as they been doing, but it requires even more resources and risks overextension. (b) try to hold what they have, but then become vulnerable to attrition warfare, worsening their position as the frontline is even longer.
There are a few things you might consider. During most of the period you are complaining about Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with a steel hand (that’s where his pseudonym comes from). He was a Georgian.
Khrushchev on the other hand was an ethnic Russian who grew up on the Ukrainian border. He was responsible for establishing the Ukrainian Soviet republic, i.e. Ukraine pretty much in its pre-2014 form. You are condemning Stalin not Khrushchev.
Translation: the broad generalizations you are making about Russians are untrue.
steve: The facts are that the European countries are nowhere near able to mount a real invasion of Russia.
Yes, and as you point out, the logistics for the Americans would be almost insurmountable.
steve: What they want is their old economic dominance.
That’s right. Ukraine provides Russia with a warm weather port, extensive grain production, and vast shale gas reserves.
Russia is a kleptocracy, and kleptocracies need to expand because they deplete what they already control.
CuriousOnlooker: There isn’t natural defensible terrain from the borders of Poland all the way to the Urals; just flat land.
With conventional invasion from the west, the geographic terrain of concern is the Great European Plain. If Russia controls up to the western border of Poland or controls Poland itself, then it has a defensible border from invasion from the west, the Carpathians providing a defensive screen. On the other hand, if Russia does not control Ukraine, then defending the border becomes immensely more difficult. That’s one reason why Russia has always wanted to control Ukraine and extend its control into the Baltics and Poland.
“This war has validated Russian paranoia in every way.”
That is only true if by validate you mean that it spurred Finland and Sweden to join NATO and the ret of NATO to spend more on their militaries. There is a huge difference between offensive and defensive war. What the Russians learned is that if you invade a nation that is really committed to fighting, especially if your invasion plans are poor and assume that the place you are invading will roll over, is difficult. They learned that logistics still matter, even if you are fighting next door. They learned that after fighting for a couple of years Bradleys and Abrams showed up but they dont matter as much as thought.
So if their paranoia was centered on the belief that if they ever wanted to invade a neighbor NATO might try to stop them, they were correct, but there has never been any evidence to support that NATO was able or willing to invade Russia.
Dave- Sorry, I dont see Stalin ruling the USSR absent the acceptance of the Russians. It is interesting that you want to claim that Russia is different than the USSR under Stalin but want to claim that it’s legitimate for Russians to consider Germany under Merkel the same as Germany under Hitler. Perhaps you could point me to the statistics showing that Merkel was building up the German war machine like Hitler did since I cant seem to find that evidence.
Steve