By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark identified Russia’s three primary strategic directions in the ongoing conflict. The first is a campaign to demoralize Ukrainians and cripple Ukraine’s war economy through relentless air attacks and targeting of military production. Secondly, Russia aims to breach Ukrainian defenses and seize additional territory, with a long-term goal of controlling Odesa and the Black Sea coast. Finally, Russia is attempting to intimidate NATO and stretch its resources while deterring Western intervention by demonstrating its nuclear capabilities.
Read the original article here
Gen. Clark outlines the Kremlin’s triple war strategy: terror, land grab, NATO pressure. The central premise here, and it’s a chilling one, is that Russia is aiming for a three-pronged attack. First, they want to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people through acts of terror. This is about more than just military objectives; it’s a deliberate attempt to crush the population’s will to fight. Then, they’re employing a land grab, seizing territory to strengthen their position and potentially dictate the terms of a future settlement. Finally, there’s the pressure on NATO, the goal being to intimidate the alliance and create distance between it and Ukraine. The intent is to isolate Ukraine and limit the support it receives.
This strategy, unfortunately, isn’t new, and the lessons of history are often overlooked. Throughout history, the tactic of bombing civilians, in an attempt to break their will, has rarely worked as intended. In fact, it often backfires. The relentless bombing of British cities during World War II, for example, only served to steel the resolve of the British people. Their determination to resist didn’t crumble; it strengthened. The Ukrainians are demonstrating similar resilience. The bombing of Rotterdam, while tragic and arguably leading to a surrender, is almost a singular example. The use of nuclear weapons in Japan is another unique situation. Targeting civilians with the intent to break their resolve is rarely effective and, in the long run, may only strengthen the targeted population’s determination.
The idea of land grabs as a key element of this strategy is also critical. Capturing territory isn’t necessarily the ultimate objective in and of itself. But, as land is gained, the leverage Ukraine possesses in any future negotiations is inevitably diminished. Russia seems to be trying to get back to what they want, which is stopping the expansion of NATO and returning a government that is more aligned with Russia.
The Minsk agreements serve as a good example of what Russia really wants in the long run. They want to maintain the status quo. They don’t want to see Western missiles positioned along their borders. If they can secure enough territory and create enough pressure, they can force Ukraine to the negotiating table and then dictate the terms of a peace deal. A key factor is time. The longer the conflict goes on, the more territory Russia can acquire. Every day that passes gives Russia more of an advantage and reduces Ukraine’s negotiating power. The United States, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be able to stop it.
This whole situation creates a concerning dynamic for NATO. There is the potential for a shift within NATO itself. With the US possibly being unreliable, individual NATO members might realize that they need to take steps to strengthen their own militaries. It’s an ironic outcome: Russia’s actions might inadvertently lead to a stronger, more independent NATO, although this is happening in the shadow of a struggling Ukraine. The idea that the Ukrainians are chronically undermanned paints a difficult picture.
In warfare, there’s a distinction between the methods and the goals. The goal is ultimately to compel an enemy to concede or reach a settlement. This can happen when further fighting is useless. It can happen when a side is no longer capable of continuing because of a decline in political will, manpower, or industrial capability. Pure attrition warfare, where the enemy is simply ground down through killing and destruction, isn’t always strictly necessary, as emphasized by manoeuvre warfare. Sun Tzu’s wisdom about subduing the enemy without fighting still holds.
The challenges the Ukrainians are facing are numerous. Their ability to fight is being hampered. They’re up against an opponent with superior supplies, an advantage in certain weaponry, and constant guided bomb raids, all of which impact morale and operational effectiveness. Recent reports of desertion within the Ukrainian army are deeply concerning. The potential loss of morale and the will to fight among the Ukrainian soldiers. These figures reveal a crisis of morale within the ranks.
The ultimate outcome of this conflict is far from decided, and the war of attrition remains, in the meantime, the only way to fight the Russians. It seems that the Russians have every intention of wearing down Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s special forces could begin targeting Ukrainian leaders, leading to further destabilization and potentially regime change. The rainy season, when the terrain becomes more difficult to traverse, might slow things down. But, Russia is still gaining ground and is poised to exert pressure and influence in the coming months, with the possibility of gaining more leverage. The US and NATO find themselves in a difficult situation.