Kyiv vs. Bakhmut: Objectives of Overthrow Regime vs. Security Zone and Territorial Continuity
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks/16/05/2023/1417
Published Date: 16 May 2023
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Comments on Contemporary Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks-all
Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Researcher in International Relations with a Focus on Security, Political and Economic Risks for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade
16 May 2023 at 14:17. Over the last few months, we have frequently heard news about the Ammunition Dispute of Bakhmut between the Wagner Military Group and the Russian Military. Following that, West intelligence agencies like UK intelligence analysed it as an indication that Russia will not have enough Ammunition to continue with the Ukraine war, so Why are they wrong?
First, we should keep in mind that any army during a war should use ammunition smartly and effectively, as the warning that was given by the NATO chief and other military figures about overusing ammunition by the Ukrainian Army, resulting in running low on ammo in the West. Presents are always less appreciated compared to producing/buying something via hard work.
Considering the above, the Ammunition Dispute of Bakhmut reflects two different objectives by Russia regarding the Ukraine War:
An Objective of Security Zone and Territorial Continuity: Security Zone aims to create a buffer zone between the Home Territory and the Rival Territory, while a Territorial Continuity aims to create a continuity of land between the Home Territory and a Separated Territory. Hence, Russia started the war via Military Operation with the objective of creating a Security Zone and Territorial Continuity by occupation and annexation of four regions - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - that are supposed to create a Security Zone and Territorial Continuity with Crimea (see map below).
An Objective of Overthrow Regime. Overthrow Regime aims to replace the Leadership of the Rival Regime with ‘Friendly Leadership’ that will cooperate with the Home Regime. Overthrowing a Regime could be achieved only by a takeover of the capital of the Rival Country or by eliminating the Rival Leadership. Russia at the start of the ‘Military Operation’ also put forth the objective of replacing Zealensky with a ‘Friendly Leader’ by taking over Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, via a land attack.
Therefore, at the start of the war, Russia tried in parallel to achieve a Security Zone and Territorial Continuity with Crimea alongside conquering Kyiv via a land attack to Overthrow the Zealensky Regime. However, the Russian Army did not evaluate correctly the ability of its force to achieve both objectives via ‘Military Operation’ based on limited mobilisation, so at some point, Russia made a shift from two objectives to only one objective by withdrawing its land forces from Kyiv. Still, the Russian Army even did not evaluate correctly its ability to hold the lines in the annexation regions based on limited mobilisation, so the Russian Army started to lose areas from the targeted ‘Security Zone and Territorial Continuity with Crimea’. In that stage, Russia started its partial mobilisation with the objective to achieve the first objective of creating a ‘Security Zone and Territorial Continuity with Crimea’. Wagner Military Group got the spot in Bakhmut, one of the front lines of the Security Zone. However, when we started to hear from Wagner Chief about the Ammunition Dispute with Russia, then Russia made a shift again from one objective to two objectives and even by giving priority to the objective of Overthrowing the Zelenskyy Regime via giving priority to Air Attacks on Kyiv, rather than giving priority to advancing in Bakhmut, which has led UK intelligence to the wrong conclusion about the lack of Ammunition by Russia. Currently, the war in Ukraine has entered the stage in the style of the First World War, namely, the war drags on without that any side making a significant advance, so it is doubtful if Russia under the concept of ‘Military Operation’ based on partial mobilisation will succeed in overcoming Kyiv alongside fully takeover the ‘Security Zone and Territorial Continuity with Crimea’ and even holding it. For achieving the two objectives in parallel, a concept of War that is based on general mobilisation is needed, rather than a concept of ‘Military Operation’ that is based on partial mobilisation.
Nevertheless, the big loser is Ukraine, which is totally wrong about the ability of the Ukrainian army to win over the Russian army even with the ‘Weapons Gifts’ from the USA and the West. My prediction is that eventually Ukraine will be needed to compromise with the ‘Red Lines’ of Russia to end this pointless war. When will it happen? Likely as in WWI, when the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian refugees will be exhausted from the devastation and casualties.
Even the USA, NATO and Western countries have taken a BIG RISK by reaching the point of Running Low on Ammo, because if a regional war erupts or, worse, a world war, then NATO will be at a disadvantage compared to other countries that did not empty their ammo and weapon storages for Ukraine.
Zelenskyy, West Leaders and NATO Leaders should make the hard decision, namely compromising with Russia to end this pointless war that makes NATO weaker and weaker on each day that passes.
