Russia-Ukraine War: Unexpected Revelations

As the Russia-Ukraine war develops, there have been many surprises. First, unlike the walk-in-the-park blitzkrieg that many anticipated, it has been an arduous war, with both sides locked in a stalemate for a month already. Second, the battlefield has seen a mixture of old and new, with such traditional equipment as tanks and cannons playing the lead, accompanied by modern, eye-catching, “celebrity-status” drones, as well as anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine wage a psychological war on social media. These new developments are attention-worthy and thought-provoking.

It is widely held in U.S. and Western public opinion that the war extending past the first month reflects failure on the part of the Russian army. According to their view, high-level Russian officials made emotional decisions based on erroneous intelligence and evaluations. The officials lacked rationality and underestimated Ukrainians’ will and ability to resist. Some Western observers interpret battlefield images of Russian armored forces destroyed by drones and Javelin anti-tank missiles as proof of utter defeat. The Russian army’s cruise missiles have had terrible combat performance with a high failure rate.

Furthermore, the Russian army has severe issues with poor situational awareness, logistics and supply chain management. This has all led to sluggish progress, transitioning into a stalemate. In the words of U.S. Commandant of the Marine Corps David Berger, “I don’t know if it’s hubris on the part of the Russian planners and leaders or just an assumption that the operation would not take very long and therefore no need to stack up logistics on the other side of the border.”

Since anti-Russian sentiment is part of political correctness in U.S. and Western public opinion, and the news disseminated on social media is characterized by sharp black-and-white divisions anchored with emotionality, Western public opinion on the Russia-Ukraine war is obviously moored to promoting Ukraine and denigrating Russia, as well as suffering from selection bias. It is evident that aside from the battle for air, naval and information supremacy, the battle for psychological supremacy will be a vital part of future warfare and conflict.

The battle for psychological supremacy is seen in the discussion of the efficacy of the Bayraktar TB2 drones and Javelin missiles.

With the dissemination of select video clips, these two weapons have gained, courtesy of the Western media, the celebrity status of “internet influencers.” They are portrayed as if they are unstoppable by the Russian army. However, whether a weapon can be effective depends not only on the abilities of the individual operating it, but also on the quality of the weapon system it relies on. There is no such thing as an invincible weapon.

For example, a modern field air defense system can destroy such unexceptional, low-level technology as the TB2 drone. Appropriate protective equipment and well-coordinated tank-infantry tactics can neutralize the threat from Javelin missiles. This war witnessed the Russian army’s Buk and Doyle anti-aircraft missile systems home in on and destroy many TB2 drones.

The Russian army even took their collection of captured Javelin missiles and turned them against the Ukrainian army. In short, if joint operations are well coordinated and appropriate tactics applied, these “internet influencer” weapons are hardly unstoppable.

Certainly, due to the vastness of the Ukrainian battlefield, the incomplete reform of the Russian military, and the limited resources for military buildup, the Russian military’s performance in this war can obviously be viewed from multiple angles.

From one angle, the Russian military’s performance is not as terrible as has been portrayed in Western media. After all, the deep position of the front line does not lie. Russian Aerospace Forces have made impressive gains in countering fire from the ground and enemy anti-aircraft systems. In contrast to the narrative contained in the West’s myopic badmouthing, the Russian military armored forces’ gains are impressive, and prove there is still an irreplaceable role in modern warfare for effective balancing of firepower, defense and mobility. Additionally, the Russian military’s long-range precision strike weapons, such as the Kalibr cruise missile and the Iskander ballistic missile, truly have demonstrated the power to strike at key enemy targets.

From another angle, however, the Russian army has exposed its own shortcomings. With the aid of drones, the Ukrainian army is able to strike at Russian troops, proving the Russian army’s defense against drones is not that good. Also, the brutal urban warfare around Mariupol and other cities means that progress is sluggish. This probably is not consistent with the plans of Russian military decision-makers. Furthermore, the fact that all kinds of armored vehicles were abandoned unfortunately shows that, after a large-scale penetration of armored units through enemy lines, the Russian army’s logistical support got disconnected. The Ukrainian Dot ballistic missile division can sink Russian landing ships, further proving that striking and suppressing ground-based long-range precision strike weapon platforms is a major problem in modern warfare.

Since the Russia-Ukraine war is still ongoing and relevant information is obscured in the fog of war, it is important to stay calm and view the matter dispassionately. What is certain is that modern high-intensity warfare and conflict is not as simple as playing a video game. There are many variables and factors at play in this complex process. The factors that determine the success or failure of a war are not only rooted in traditional elements, but also in whether the resources at hand can be optimally integrated to achieve successful joint operations among the branches of the military, building on strengths and minimizing weaknesses. It is also important that a military keep pace with the times, adapting to the development of military technology.

If the Russia-Ukraine war reaches a stalled stage of alternately negotiating and fighting, it may embark on a relatively protracted process of confrontation and attrition. At this stage, whoever’s “health bar” is fuller, whoever’s hand holds the better cards, will be able to grind out the war of attrition and thus have a favorable position at the negation. Therefore, the new dynamics and modes of confrontation merit serious attention and analysis.