Will fightback in the south count as success or provocation?
If Kherson city remains in Russian hands, is that a victory or defeat for Kyiv?
The dice are rolling, the curtain has been whipped back. Ukraine’s counter-offensive has begun. Weeks of shaping operations, those vital precursors for a successful military campaign, have given way to the main event.
There had been speculation, including from this newspaper, that telegraphing its intent to attack in the south this side of winter was a risky strategy by Kyiv.
What the weeks of messaging did do, of course, was to unseat the Russian army.
Attacks in the Donbas, already reduced to a fraction of their early murderous work thanks to the supplies of long-range precision weapons by the West (including the fearsome American Himars missile system), fell to a trickle as Moscow was forced to move a large portion of its forces south to meet the impending threat.
That was clever. So too was hitting the few bridges linking Russia’s main force in the area with the few thousand troops it had pushed north and west of the Dnipro river. The Russian forces in the Kherson region are now caught in a pocket as a Ukrainian force of comparatively decent strength falls upon them.
This will come as a surprise to many, not least the Russians, who are thought to have started this reckless venture with around 160,000 troops. With their dead and wounded, they are now thought to have around half that figure across the whole country.
The former head of Britain’s secret intelligence service, MI6, has welcomed Ukraine’s counter-attacks in Kherson, saying it is a key moment in the war. Sir Alex Younger told the BBC that the fightback from Kyiv showed the two opposing forces had “reached some kind of balance, which is an unexpected and frankly welcome situation”.
Moreover, the Russians have limited means to call on. The recent habit of Russian ammunition dumps spontaneously erupting in the night will have been designed to limit Moscow’s means to fight.
There are no guarantees of Ukrainian success, though. Warfare is always part art, part science, a large slice luck. But, looking wider, there are two things to consider.
First, if the countryside is taken, but Kherson city remains in Russian hands, is that a victory or defeat for Kyiv? Failing to gain the city would be spun by Moscow as a major blunder by Ukraine, but if they are still advancing in other areas and cutting off any chance of a Russian push west to Odesa, Kyiv will surely accept that.
Western allies meanwhile, some of whom have been eager to see proof Ukraine can turn large deliveries of aid into progress on the battlefield, would likely accept a “grinding” offensive that weakens Putin.
There are reports that Sergei Shoigu, Moscow’s defence minister, has already been sidelined; deemed operationally inept. Senior military generals, we are told, have been sacked on a regular basis. If so, Russia’s command is in crisis, just as the war is heating up and Europe is cooling down. A counter-attack in the south deemed “successful” would therefore deal Putin a significant body blow. How will he react? Will he be so stupid and reckless as to risk the use of a tactical nuclear weapon?
Will he engineer an accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, designed to render swathes of Ukraine and possibly eastern Europe unsuitable for agricultural use for years to come? It’s highly unlikely but wouldn’t be the first reckless decision he has taken.
What counts as “success” in this counter attack, and where’s the line between a “safe” amount of success and a “provocative” amount? Over the coming weeks we are likely to find out.