Following a protracted period exceeding 15 months, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict remains enflamed, with the equation of hostilities, front lines, and confrontation unabated, with little to no indications of a viable path forward for either side to attain a decisive military victory or a comprehensive cessation of hostilities. Such a state of affairs was manifestly apparent throughout the initial year of the conflict, as the maps delineating military control underwent alterations, and the situation became increasingly intricate, with all endeavors geared towards convincing the opposing factions to engage in negotiations proving futile.
Preliminary Bombardment
Although it is difficult to set a date for the counterattack in light of considerations related to the secrecy that must surround the attack to achieve the element of surprise which may lead to confusion for the opponent, it requires great military and combat readiness. In the event that a counterattack is launched, it will be imperative for Ukraine to not only secure its current positions but also to achieve all of its military objectives, as the outcome of the conflict may be influenced, to some degree, by the success of this potential offensive maneuver.
Ukrainian officials have expressed varying views on the matter of a counterattack. While the Ukrainian president has indicated that such an attack would require additional time to prepare, there have been conflicting statements on this issue.
Meanwhile, Miril Budanov, Head of Ukrainian Military Intelligence, announced that it would begin soon. Despite the variation in official statements, this may be acceptable in the context of maneuvering or psychological warfare and exerting pressure on Russia.
May saw a series of developments that appear to point toward an escalation in military activity and potential hostilities between the Russo-Ukrainian factions, indicating that preparations for an anticipated attack may be underway. Among these indicators were several drone strikes against Russian targets, including an attack on the Kremlin building on May 3rd, which Moscow interpreted as an attempted assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin by Ukrainian forces. Additionally, Russia reported that one of its border towns had been subjected to artillery shelling three times in a single week later in the month. Meanwhile, Moscow markedly increased its onslaughts and offensives against Kiev, launching 17 attacks throughout May.
Multiple Interpretations
Despite the speculations about a possible counterattack and conflicting statements about its timing, the ongoing arrangements indicate that Ukraine will not back down. Rather, it is waiting for the right moment to ensure that it achieves the maximum gains. In this context, the motives of Ukraine for launching its counterattack can be identified as follows:
The desire to restore Ukrainian sovereignty: Militarily the counterattack indicates a shift in the strategy of the armed forces of a party from defense to attack. Through this shift, Ukraine aims to restore its sovereignty over its territory, as Russia still controls about 16 percent of Ukrainian territory. Although the area under Russian control has shrunk and retreated since the beginning of the war, Ukraine insists on removing Russia from all its territory. According to some estimates, the attack could start from Kherson or Zaporizhzhia, as progress on these fronts could enable Ukraine to cut off the land bridge between Russia and Crimea Peninsula, thereby blocking supplies, depriving Russia of logistical advantages and limiting its space for movement, thus allowing it to be besieged.
Investing Western support: Ukraine senses that it has the ability to employ unprecedented Western support in achieving a breakthrough or field progress and inflict defeat on the Russian side. It seems that Ukraine is betting that supplying it with heavy battle tanks, defense systems, and advanced weapons that it did not possess before, may secure gains in its counterattack, similar to the successes it achieved in its attacks on Kherson and Kharkiv last year, without having the same military capabilities. However, this remains risky with the difficulty of defeating Russia and its ability to prolong the war, and the uncertainty in Ukraine’s ability to secure this gain. This imposes further restrictions, as some Western voices believe that continued support, and the ability to convince Western public opinion of its usefulness will directly depend on the outcome of the expected attack.
Exploiting Russia’s exhaustion: Ukraine bets on the state of exhaustion and confusion that dominated the Russian military performance and the defeats suffered by the forces especially during the battles of Bachmut. The Russian forces were greatly depleted, as they lost about 20,000 soldiers from December until early May. This was reflected on the morale of the remaining the elements, in addition to their losses that affected weapons and ammunition. The battles of Bachmut also showed confusion and disarray in managing protracted battles, against the backdrop of the conflict between the military establishment and the commander of the Wagner Group, which at times went so far as to accuse the Chief of Staff of treason. These factors would limit Russia’s military effectiveness. Attacks targeting Moscow are inseparable, which could increase pressure on Russia, especially since their continuation would incite Russian public opinion and reduce voices supporting the war in light of the threat to the capital.
Obstacles and Challenges
With the end of winter, the land becomes more apt to launch the counterattack. The hardness of the soil, in light of the decline in rainfall and rising temperatures, allows the continuation of military operations. However, any Ukrainian move may encounter a number of obstacles which may prevent a major victory, including the weakness of Ukrainian air defenses, which are likely to face some kind of missile dumping and Russian airstrikes once the counterattack begins. Russia will then target command and control centers, which could derail the offensive and paralyze Ukraine.
Given Ukraine’s status as the aggressor, it cannot be overstated that their need for additional fighters and troops is critical, particularly when compared to the defensive posture of Russian forces. However, the Ukrainian attack could face significant challenges in the face of fortified Russian defenses and readiness. The majority of the key roads and frontlines that would be targeted in the attack, spanning a distance of 850 kilometers, are safeguarded by an array of defenses, including trenches, anti-tank mines, concrete barriers, and barbed wire. Additionally, Russia has bolstered its deployments at potential points of engagement between the opposing factions.
This is in addition to ammunition shortage, the logistical obstacles that Ukraine may face during the offensive such as maintenance and refueling equipment, as well as the potential heavy losses in its ranks and their impact in undermining the soldiers’ morale. Ukraine’s lack of attack fighters remains one of the weaknesses that could face the upcoming attack. It seems that this challenge will remain in place with the refusal of Western countries to provide Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets, in light of fears that they will be used to target the Russian in-depth-territory, in addition to Russia’s success in paralyzing Ukrainian airports’ operations.
In light of these obstacles, any Ukrainian counterattack, should it be executed, would undoubtedly entail significant risks. Despite Ukraine’s motivations and its assessment of its capacity to alter the balance of power on the battlefield through an offensive against Russia, such confidence may be misplaced in view of Russia’s ability to withstand such an attack and potentially transform it into a devastating engagement that saps Ukrainian resources. As such, precise calculations and assessments of the potential outcomes are imperative before Ukraine embarks on any plans for an attack.
