A Russian-American military historian Max Boot wrote a column on The Washington Post where he is criticizing those, who are still scared of Putin and claims Ukraine can win. Despite the failures of the Russian army in Ukraine, many believe Kremlin will escalate and one way or another Russia will win, and Boot writes why he does not agree. One scenario that is mooted by analysts is that Putin will declare war and announce a full mobilization on May 9th, as he might think more tanks and troops will bring him victory. In this case, there will be a risk of social unrest and still little chances of victory with untrained low-quality units. Beyond a lack of trained reserves and assumably lack of munition and modern equipment, one of Russia’s main problems is logistics. If they are failing to supply 150,000 men how would they supply a larger force? – writes Boot. Another largely discussed scenario is if Putin decides to launch chemical or even nuclear weapons. Most probably Kremlin would then use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian bases or population centers. In this case, NATO could launch airstrikes sinking the rest of the Black Sea Fleet and destroying much of the Russian Army, which would severely hit Putin’s regime for long. Boot summarized that while the world can’t prevent Putin from escalation, it can make sure he knows the price for it would be too high.
The Russians are losing the naval war off Ukraine to an enemy with no warships ― writes Forbes columnist David Axe. Axe believes, that following successful Ukrainian attacks on multiple Russian vessels, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has little chance to achieve any of its goals. And that is considering Ukraine does not possess any warships. The column lists all losses of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which in total makes two big Russian ships sunk plus two damaged, and three patrol boats knocked out if not totally destroyed. As Turkey controls the Bosphorous Strait, and Ankara is a strong supporter of Ukraine, the Russians won’t be able to send fresh ships to support their Black Sea Fleet. Without the three amphibs and with no Moskva with its long-range air-defense missiles, the Black Sea Fleet no longer is able to launch a littoral front along Ukraine’s coastline to stage an assault on Odesa. This could free Odesa’s garrison to support the liberation of Kherson. In addition, the remaining Russian Fleet is vulnerable, left with only three frigates struggling to maintain an air-defense umbrella. And that is before Ukraine started deploying anti-ship missiles and drone boats received from the United Kingdom and the United States.
Lt. Col. Theodore “Doc” Shanks and a political economist Alexander Gard-Murray wrote a column about the Achilles’ heel of warfare on the DefenseNews. The experts claim that failed logistics and dependency on fossil fuels led the “Russian bear” to keep failing in its invasion of Ukraine. Following their reckless ignorance of supply and logistics, within days after the start of the full-scale invasion, the Russian troops found themselves without fuel food, and water. Military experts have been lamenting the complications of fossil fuel dependence – on the battlefield and strategically. For example, according to the Costs of War Project data, about a quarter of oil consumed by the US military was to protect access to oil. On the strategic level, western dependence on Russian oil and gas is a weapon itself, leading to the inability to fully isolate the Russian economy. Shanks and Gard-Murray offer several steps of how investing in clean and sustainable energy solutions would help get rid of this “Achilles’ heel”. First, they suggest making the military bases energy independent, ideally, every base should be able to generate its own clean energy. Second, efficiency and better planning can help decrease fuel consumption, of course in the long-term the Department of Defense should aim to use electricity or alternative technologies like carbon capture and transformation. Third, the economies of America and its’ allies should aim to decarbonize, otherwise, fossil fuel dependency will be continuously used as a weapon.