Putin announced that he will continue to be president by staging a presidential campaign. How will the war be staged to support his propaganda effort?
Putin announced he will "run" for "re-election" in March 2024:
Putin’s announcement of his presidential bid in a military setting indicates that his campaign may focus on Russia’s war in Ukraine more than ISW previously assessed, although the extent of this focus is unclear at this time. ISW previously assessed that Putin’s presidential campaign would likely not focus on the war in Ukraine and instead would focus on domestic stability and criticisms of the West.[8] Putin’s presidential bid announcement at a ceremony rewarding Russian military personnel fighting in Ukraine in a conversation with a DNR combatant suggests that the war in Ukraine may play a more significant role in his campaign strategy.
How does Putin expect the war to shape his campaign? Will this type of an announcement mean he will rely on battlefield victories to bolster his campaign through the election? The Russian military will try:
Russian forces have likely committed to offensive operations in multiple sectors of the front during a period of the most challenging weather of the fall-winter season in an effort to seize and retain the initiative prior to the Russian presidential elections in March 2024.
Or will it mean he has established his credentials as a war leader in order to downplay it until the election?
And depending on how Putin campaigns and sets war policies up until the voting, how will Ukraine's war decisions and the West's decisions on supporting Ukraine affect the Russian campaign?
The war is a blaring background noise regardless of Putin's framing strategy:
The Russian war in Ukraine has been a disaster for Russia’s economy, military, and global reputation. It is a war Russia is losing, although the Russian government has declared it illegal to discuss or criticize the mess in Ukraine. The problems Russia is having in Ukraine increase the longer they remain there.
I hope Strategypage is right. But the Russians still hold over 100,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian land. And the Russian ground forces are still holding the line and attacking despite leadership shortfalls and bad troop morale. The key is whether Ukraine's problems are increasing more or less than Russia's.
The fact that Russia, Ukraine, and the West can consider this situation is a problem for Putin. When he ordered the invasion he no doubt thought he'd be running for reelection with a grateful Ukraine brought home to Mother Russia and the Russian people cheering his restoration of Russian greatness.
And with greater glory and power achieved during his extended truce with China, Putin would be able to confidently face China in 2026, as 2021 changes in Russia's national security strategy seemed to hint.
Instead, the removal of provisions in Russia's national security strategy about cooperation with NATO seems to have telegraphed what Putin hoped would be a decisive confrontation in 2022 with NATO over Ukraine's status to break NATO's cohesion. Perhaps followed by some cooperation with a weakened NATO eager to appease Russia to enable Putin to pivot to face China.
What is Putin's path to glory and power now?
UPDATE (Tuesday): Again, it is entirely proper for Republicans to prioritize controlling our borders to make sure America sets the criteria for immigration. It is wrong for Democrats to hold up funding for Ukraine and Israel by refusing to control the border, letting Lord knows who across in massive numbers. The bias in reporting is stunning.
And remember, lots of Democrats hate Israel and think it should be destroyed. And I think Biden is only accidentally backing Ukraine. Have you thought my opinion outlandish? Ahem (via Instapundit):
Several Republican Senators tell me they have become increasingly convinced over several months that Joe Biden wants to kill the funding. This explains his very slow roll to provide Ukraine the deliverables he previously promised them. Biden has repeatedly promised munitions and other supplies to Ukraine and then never actually sent them, or slow rolled it.
So there you go. Biden only wants Republicans to get the blame for losing Ukraine. Hopefully our allies can fill our gap in support until we get this sorted out.
UPDATE (Tuesday): This is BS advice:
Some in the U.S. military want Ukraine to pursue a “hold and build” strategy — to focus on holding the territory it has and building its ability to produce weapons over 2024. The United States believes the strategy will improve Ukraine’s self-sufficiency and ensure Kyiv is in a position to repel any new Russian drive.
The goal would be to create enough of a credible threat that Russia might consider engaging in meaningful negotiations at the end of next year or in 2025.
Preparing to prepare defenses to hold off a new Russian drive lets Russia know it does not have to fear a Ukrainian offensive. That allows Russia to determine the pace of the war by holding the initiative, secure that at worst Russia faces a draw--holding Ukrainian territory.
How well did this kind of "pressure to negotiate" strategy work on Assad? He's just fine, still sitting behind the big desk in the midst of the ruin of Syria. Thank you for asking.
UPDATE (Wednesday): Interesting:
Russian forces have routinely conducted military operations in Ukraine aimed at shaping Western behavior instead of achieving operational battlefield objectives, and the US intelligence assessment that ongoing Russian offensive operations do not have an immediate operational military objective is entirely plausible. Russian forces have yet to seize the initiative throughout Ukraine, but Russian forces may attempt to pursue an immediate operational objective if they do seize the initiative. The Russian military command has also reportedly conducted offensive operations with domestic political goals in mind, and internal Kremlin dynamics may be influencing Russian military decisions about ongoing Russian offensive operations.
If it is true that Russia thinks they can weaken NATO and strengthen Putin on the battlefield, it stands to reason that the reverse could be true if we help Ukraine win on the battlefield.
Don't let Russia win. Russia won't be grateful that we stopped helping Ukraine. As the saying goes, when you strike a king, kill him.
UPDATE (Wednesday): Our experience with a politically motivated offensive divorced from military objectives was not great.
UPDATE (Wednesday): Yeah:
As 2024 nears, there are increasing challenges and risks facing Ukraine, from internal disagreements within the Ukrainian government to growing fatigue amongst its Western allies.
I did warn that Ukraine needed to show a major victory to keep our aid coming.
UPDATE (Thursday): Ukraine can still win and it is a mistake to negotiate with Russia:
The current phase of the war is not easy for Ukraine or for our partners. Everyone wants quick, Hollywood-style breakthroughs on the battlefield that will bring a quick collapse of Russia’s occupation. Although our objectives will not be reached overnight, continued international support for Ukraine will, over time, ensure that local counteroffensives achieve tangible results on the frontlines, gradually destroying Russian forces and thwarting Putin’s plans for a protracted war.
Putin wants to win. Negotiations now tell him NATO won't help Ukraine win. Which is an amazingly comfy safety net for an aggressor bent on conquest. Negotiations were not sincere:
As one of the Ukrainian negotiators remarked, “We had to buy time for our partners in the West to come to their senses.” Russia’s approach in the negotiations, in their view, was simply “to formalize the capitulation of Ukraine.”
I still wonder if Ukraine can manage to launch an offensive on the Kherson front (needing air defense, bridges, and a coiled logistics tail to back mechanized brigades). Heck, I wonder if Ukraine could attack across the vast dried out reservoir around Nikopol, between the Kherson and Melitopol fronts. Which also requires river-crossing operations, of course.
And yes, helping Ukraine win is in NATO's interest. If you can see Russia, they aren't far enough east.
UPDATE (Thursday): Negotiations are no way to end the war unless you define "end" as "the end of Ukraine":
The Kremlin appears to be returning to expansionist rhetoric last observed before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in an effort to resurface its claims that Ukraine is part of historically Russian territory and discuss the borders Russian leaders regard as appropriate for a rump Ukrainian state.
UPDATE (Friday): Allowing Russia to defeat Ukraine hurts American interests:
Helping Ukraine regain control of all or most of its territory would be much more advantageous, as it would drive Russian forces even further to the east. Best of all, supporting Ukraine to its victory and then helping it rebuild would put the largest and most combat-effective friendly military on the European continent at the forefront of the defense of NATO—whether Ukraine does or does not ultimately join the alliance.
As I said yesterday, it's better when
Russia is farther east. And I'd rather have Ukraine's military fighting
with us rather than yoked to Russia's army.
I don't understand why conservatives don't support defeating Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Demanding a plan before providing aid is ridiculous. Hell, Putin's plan relies on that attitude to simply outlast us. that's his plan now.
Rather than react to Democratic support for defeating Russia by reflexively rejecting that policy, exploit their sudden conversion and say "Welcome to the party, pal." Our "plan" is to help Ukraine defeat Russia's ground forces in battle.
Reagan had it right on how to approach Russia, "We win, they lose."
The details remain unclear but the focus should be helping Ukraine drive the Russians from southern Ukraine, including Crimea. Russia can't be allowed to maintain forward positions to resume the conquest of Ukraine--especially their Black Sea coast--at a future date.
And
I'll ask conservatives demanding a plan for Ukraine's victory what their
plan is if Ukraine loses and Russia finally takes Ukraine. Because
Russia will have learned it can win if it persists. And Russia will be
poised to directly attack NATO. How much will it cost America to help
defend NATO then? Without Ukraine's army standing between us and Russia?
And with Ukraine's military potential added to Russia's power?
NOTE: The image was made from DALL-E.
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.
