07/3/2024 – Translated from Ukrainian via Google and OFP
The Russian occupation army continues to storm Kharkiv region, but found itself in a disadvantageous situation. The forces and means of the enemy are not enough to conduct successful combat operations here, it is a resource trap. At the same time, this is an ideal opportunity for the Defense Forces to significantly reduce the enemy’s resources. Based on this logic, it is irrational to completely clear and close this direction now, because the enemy is forced to withdraw his forces here from the priority eastern direction and suffer heavy losses.
At the same time, the Armed Forces should concentrate not only on defense, but also on counteroffensive. The most vulnerable for the occupiers is the Crimean peninsula, as well as the Kerch bridge, especially in a situation where Ukraine received a new package of effective weapons from Western partners. Therefore, part of the forces can be directed to the southern part of the front.
This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA by instructor pilot, reserve colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, military expert Roman Svitan.
– The Institute for the Study of War assumed that the Kremlin dictator Putin has a “theory of victory”. It consists in prolonging the war and moving forward slowly, taking advantage of the situation when Western aid is coming to Ukraine in insufficient amounts and not fast enough. In this way, Putin intends to achieve his goal, which remains unchanged: the complete destruction of Ukrainian statehood and identity. Do you agree that such a theory can really exist? And can the slow advance of the enemy really lead him to the goal?
– This is not a “theory of victory”, these are forced measures, since any other actions of the Russians simply do not work for objective reasons. In order to destroy Ukrainian statehood, it is necessary to use a hundred nuclear air bombs – and there will be no Ukrainian statehood. But then there will be no Russia either, because the whole world will perceive it very negatively.
Russia cannot use the mechanism of nuclear destruction, so the main mechanism used is state capture. But a state of one hundred million technically cannot take over a state of forty million. There are objective factors that prevent the Russians from fulfilling their plans. But it is quite obvious that their task – the destruction of the Ukrainian nation – is the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
But in Russia, there is not enough army to capture the territory of Ukraine, there is a lack of human resources, no matter what anyone says. Because one thing is a hundred million population, and another is a professional army that needs to be trained for years or even decades. Lack of means for conducting hostilities, the same equipment, ammunition, fuel, etc.
Therefore, the only mechanism remains – to lean on the forehead and press. This is not a “theory of victory”, it is the only measure left in the arsenal of the Russian military-political leadership. But they will press as much as possible on the area where this can happen.
Here also comes the question of the pressure area. The length of the front is 1.5 thousand kilometers, but they can press for a maximum of 100 kilometers. If you count all the fragments where they press, you get the following number. That is, they cannot even push through the entire front line due to a lack of forces and means, and not because there is some grand theory. Therefore, I consider this interpretation of the enemy’s actions, proposed by ISW, to be incorrect.
If Putin had an army of two million, he would not press as hard as he does now. He would go for a breakthrough with an exit to the center, with the capture of the left bank, etc.
Based on the real situation of the Russians, we need to react accordingly – to keep their pressure, if possible to cause maximum damage. If they press, then they rise above the surface of the earth, and therefore become vulnerable, and we can destroy them. And at the same time prepare counteroffensive actions in another direction.
The best option is Crimea. For the Russians, the Crimean direction is the most vulnerable from the point of view of defense. If we had as many forces and means as the Russians have now, we would already be in Crimea, in Kerch. But due to the lack, we are still only preparing for this direction.
– Regarding Crimea. Just recently, on the night of July 1, explosions were heard in Crimea, they caused panic. Local media wrote about the work of air defense in Kerch and the smoke screen in the area of the ferry crossing and the Kerch Bridge. Don’t you think it’s time to at least deal with the bridge?
– The thing is that it had to be dealt with eight years ago, when they started to build it – there was not supposed to be a bridge. The question is why its destruction is being delayed. Can we? Yes, we can. We have enough weapons to destroy the bridge.
We have at least half a dozen Kerch Bridge damage mechanisms with a hundred percent guarantee. For example, we have 300-kilometer ATACMS, there are Storm Shadow SCALPs, which have already entered Kerch and destroyed the Askold missile-carrying corvette. We have our Neptunes, which have already destroyed targets at a distance of 300 kilometers – the same port “Kavkaz”, located next to the Kerch bridge. And we have drones.
That is, we have a serious spectrum of means of defeat. Why our military-political leadership does not give a command – from a military point of view, there is no answer at this point.
– You said that the enemy cannot push the front along its entire length, as it is limited in means. But we see that he is betting on the Kharkiv direction. So, during the day of June 30, the enemy made 16 assaults. Our defenders who are there say that the situation is very difficult, but under control. Do you suppose that the enemy will be able to squeeze out of this section of the front, that it will be possible to close it?
– The question is whether it is necessary. From the point of view of military logic, this is not always necessary. The enemy is currently in a vulnerable position. He tries to advance with forces that are not enough to fulfill this task, this is the so-called resource trap. When a task is set that requires more effort and resources than is actually available, it means that the task will not be completed. And so these forces and means will be destroyed, which we are doing.
From a military point of view, this state of the enemy is beneficial to us. If the Russians have created a bridgehead for self-destruction, added resources, if we destroy them on this bridgehead, it is beneficial to us. Perhaps it is not necessary to close this direction. If it is necessary to take the best lines to destroy the Russians, you can conduct a series of counterattacks and take such positions.
The situation that has developed now is becoming profitable for us. I will say more – it would be beneficial for us if similar areas were formed in the Sumy region, in the Chernihiv region, in the Bogodukhov region… Now it is important for us to stretch the front, to divert Russian forces from the main direction in the east.
If our actions in the Kharkiv Region lead to the fact that the Russians, who have fallen into a resource trap, will transfer reserves here from Donetsk, then perhaps this will become one of our main tasks. Then the enemy will have no mechanisms to press and advance in the east.
Therefore, I would not say that the main task is to squeeze them out of this direction. In reality, we need to deploy the front line from Kharkiv Oblast to Belarus. The border with Russia should be the front line, and should have been so for ten years. The sooner we rebuild an additional front line, the better. Moreover, since we are in defense mode, it is more convenient for us to solve these issues. And the Russians must be forced to attack, because during an attack the loss ratio is very high.
Based on this logic, we should not squeeze them out, but destroy them: the more, the better. Recently, thanks to the increase in aid supplies from our partners, we can afford it in the Kharkiv direction.
– The enemy again attacked the border of the Sumy region. According to the regional military administration, 21 explosions were recorded on the night of July 1. Could this be the beginning of the opening of a new front, this time in Sumy Oblast?
– Shelling is not an indicator that the enemy is preparing for an offensive. Vice versa. Perhaps they are trying to prevent our troops from turning in this direction, entrenching themselves, building fortifications, etc.
Here it is necessary to take into account what targets the shelling is aimed at. If this is a border zone, then, most likely, they are trying to disrupt our ability to defend ourselves on this part of the front. In principle, you can go from defense to offense quite quickly. So I think this is not an attempt to advance and deploy forces, but an attempt to prevent us from turning around.
I repeat: the entire border with Russia must become a front line. And someday it will be so. The sooner the better for us.
Some interesting thoughts from Colonel Svitan.
“Therefore, I consider this interpretation of the enemy’s actions, proposed by ISW, to be incorrect.”
I also disagree with the latest assessment from the ISW, as I’ve stated in another, earlier, post. To underline the state of deterioration of vlad’s ground forces, in the next article, the reader/viewer must take in what the cockroach army is using as artillery.