Ukraine Upgrades Its Mobile Defense Strategy
They are constructing 2,000 kilometers of three-lane fortifications, with $649 million allotted for 2024.
This has been a long-standing request of mine. I’ve lost count of how many times I urged Ukraine to begin fortifying their defensive lines. However, it’s understandable why they didn’t pursue this route for so long, and it’s even more evident why they are now tripling down on their efforts.
Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the “Ukrainian government has allocated $509 million this year to fortify both its border with Russia and the front line with Russian forces across its east and south”. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal promised an additional $142 million will be invested to strengthen the defensive lines.
I wanted Ukraine to “select specific spots in each sector, dig in, and wait for the Russians to come to them”.
The reason why Ukraine took forever to embrace the idea to dig into the earth is because they want to liberate the occupied territories. They want to advance. They want to drive the Russians out of occupied territory. Let’s say Ukraine builds a trench line in southern Ukraine in Zaphorizhia, like the one they are building now.
What happens to the three lines of defense when Ukraine advances to Tokmak and gets stalled by a Russian defensive line built around Tokmak?
If Ukraine were to fall back due to Russian resistance after making an advance, there would be a massive 33 kilometers of open space between where the Ukrainian troops will be at Tokmak and the two defensive lines that are coming up right behind Orkhiv.
A mobile defense strategy coupled with bite and hold to advance is the best approach, as it provides Ukraine with the best of both worlds
Mobile defense: In a mobile defense strategy, defenders do not hold fixed positions but instead, rely on maneuverability to disrupt enemy attacks. This makes it difficult for the enemy to predict their movements and concentrate forces for a breakthrough. Mobile defenses favor open areas where defenders can move freely and use flanking tactics to attack enemy weak points.
The central component of mobile defense is the ability to launch swift and decisive counterattacks against enemy forces once their intentions and weaknesses are identified. These counterattacks aim to disrupt enemy momentum, regain lost ground, and control the sector.
Effective command and control systems are crucial for coordinating the actions of dispersed mobile defense units, ensuring they operate cohesively and remain aligned with overall strategic objectives of the force.
Bite and Hold (offense): This is what Ukraine did to advance in Southern Ukraine. It feels like almost an eon has passed since that happened. But one look at the map near Robotyne will help us understand the effectiveness of the bite and hold strategy.
In the bite and hold strategy, you advance with the intent of capturing a small portion of enemy territory (the “bite”) and then fortifying and defending that captured ground (the “hold”). This strategy worked for Ukraine because it eliminated the need for a full-scale offensive, and the advancing troops had limited objectives. Advancing slowly helped avoid overextending the frontline, ensuring that troops at the contact line with enemy forces remained connected to supply lines and other parts of the military network.
After Ukraine captured Robotyne, Russian forces attempted multiple times to recapture the town. However, every attack was repelled, despite Ukraine not having built the kind of defensive lines they are constructing now.
If the bite and hold strategy proved effective, why did Ukraine switch to embracing the Russian strategy to dig in?
Lack of trust in the Western world to do the right thing is a significant factor. In my opinion, mobile defense combined with bite and hold is the best strategy to evict the Russian forces. However, for both strategies to work effectively, you need a well-equipped army — not one that is constantly checking its ledger to monitor remaining ammunition and calculating how long they can sustain the current rate of shell firing.
Mobile defense and a bite-and-hold offense will be a disaster of a strategy if you are not well-armed. You may be able to bite, but you won’t be able to hold. What’s the point of flexibility in troop movement when your reserves are operating at only 50% combat capacity?
The problem for Ukraine is that there is no way to predict if Western support will remain on an upswing, as it is promising today. Some of the pain points have been removed. The United States has immediately moved one billion dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment to Ukraine. I have no doubts that there will be more, and perhaps even bigger shipments ordered to move in the coming weeks.
But is there a guarantee that this support will remain at the elevated level for the foreseeable future? Ukraine has been pleading with bended knee for more Patriot launchers, almost since February, but only one unit has been promised after three months of negotiation. The Patriot launchers in Greece and Spain are simply enjoying the breeze.
So, what clarity does a commander have when allies won’t respond with clarity? As a result, Ukraine is building a three-lane fortification that will stretch for 2,000 kilometers. In the event the war stretches and Western support for Ukraine falters, they will have defensive lines to fall back on and halt the Russian army.
A backup option necessitated due to the character traits of the allies.
Half a billion dollars is being wasted because that’s the kind of allies Ukraine has. I believe Ukraine is done with hoping for allies to do the right thing at the right time and at the right volume. This is Ukraine using its money to protect its long-term future.
If the West moves forward and arms Ukraine, then all is well and good. If, in case it does not, Ukraine has a plan B. The fallback plan is to not allow the Russian army any more options to advance further into their territory. In such case, Ukraine will create a gridlock and aim to sustain it.
This position aligns well with the strategy I outlined yesterday, especially after it became clear that the U.S. national security team is still somewhat reluctant to fully assist Ukraine in defeating the Kremlin’s army.
To summarize what I wrote yesterday, I recommended that Ukraine use the American supply of weapons to immediately stabilize their frontline. Then, they should lie low for another few months, adopting a predominantly defensive posture to allow their ammunition stocks to increase. They should also begin receiving the F16s. Afterward, they can push forward once Europe starts supplying 4,000 artillery shells every daty (an annual production capacity of 1.4 million shells).
Europe is not too far away from that target.
So, what happens when Ukraine starts to advance?
The three-lane defensive line Ukraine is building will form the backbone of the Ukrainian forces. If things go wrong, they can fall back. If things go well, they can keep advancing and deploy the mobile defense strategy. I think Ukraine should opt for a blitzkrieg to reach the Sea of Azov.
They need to consider the various elements required to decisively break through the first Russian defensive line. Identify the components needed to achieve such a breakthrough, accumulate them, and go for a full-scale break.
We have seen how quickly territory can be lost if the frontlines are broken. After the fall of Avdiivka, Russians quickly took multiple settlements in the area.
They have advanced nearly 21 kilometers, including Avdiivka. Russians won Avdiivka because they took control of the air over the sector. Once Ukraine takes control of the air, over a narrow section in the south, they can devastate the Russian trench lines. This attack on the Russian frontline using air-to-surface missiles has to be further augmented by dropping surface-to-surface missiles such as the ATACMS and artillery firepower.
Break the line and keep advancing.
Ukraine needs a few things before it can reach this position. Their combat power needs to increase significantly before the attacks can begin, or they need to reduce the Russian combat power to such a low level. It will likely be a combination of both approaches.
No matter what the American administration says, this war is winnable. However, they are not ready to win, and that is the problem. In what world can a $1.5 trillion economy defeat the combined power of nations with a GDP of $45 trillion?
Ten Patriot systems. One thousand Patriot interceptors. One thousand ATACMS missiles. One hundred F16s. One thousand air-to-ground missiles. Two million artillery shells. If they were all provided within one month, the conflict would likely be swiftly resolved.
Is the above-mentioned list so difficult to provide?
Heck, except for the artillery shells, the West already has everything else. Can they tell us why they have not provided it to Ukraine? This is the reason why Ukraine is building three-lane defensive lines.
This story is outside the paywall. You can share it with anyone. Thx.
