INTERVIEW | The Changing Face of War in Ukraine with Kimberly Kagan

The Institute for the Study of War is one of the most quoted sources regarding the analysis of conflicts around the world. Kimberly Kagan is the founder and president, having started the organization in 2007. Since then, she and the institute have covered a variety of portfolios, including wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine.

The Sankei Shimbun and JAPAN Forward sat down with Dr Kagan to discuss the current situation in Ukraine, its implications for Europe and Asia, and how technology has changed the face of war. This is the first of two parts. Excerpts follow.

Coming next:
INTERVIEW | Japan Must Prepare For Conflict in Asia, Says Kimberly Kagan

Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

What are the implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is a transformational event in the safety and security of the international order. And, the safety and security of not only Ukraine, Europe, and the United States, but also Japan.

This is the invasion by a large nuclear-armed state of a neighboring country. Without provocation. Its purpose is to conquer Ukrainian territory and establish the Kremlin's political control over Ukrainian politics.

This is also a war in which Vladimir Putin has sought to destroy the language, culture, and way of life, as well as the political independence of Ukraine.

What do you mean by transformational?

[The war] is transformational for several reasons. First, Mr Putin has begun the largest war in Europe since 1945. Second, he is deliberately seeking the elimination of an independent state that has given up nuclear weapons and whose security is guaranteed through various agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum.

We are no longer in the post-Cold War or in a post-9/11 world. This is a new world in which aggressor states are seeking conquests. [They are] challenging the credibility of the alliances the US and like-minded countries have established. Mr Putin seeks to destroy Ukraine as a polity, but also to eliminate the value of NATO and its alliances.

What's your overall assessment of the military situation in Ukraine?

The Russians are making small but consistent territorial gains.

These gains are small compared to the casualties, as Russians are losing 30,000 to 35,000 casualties per month — which includes the killed and wounded.

Putin has, through incentives and coercion, been able to recruit about 30,000 to 35,000 new Russian soldiers every month. [This means] the Ukrainians are costing Putin almost 100% of his freshly mobilized manpower. As they come in, they go out.

So Putin faces a manpower shortage. [...] And he doesn't want to make a big compulsory mobilization because that would be unpopular.

But we mustn't imagine that he [Putin] only has these territorial objectives. He is stating his objective as not having an independent government in Ukraine and disarming Ukraine. The Russians have not achieved these [objectives].

While Russia is making gains, the Ukrainians are able to defend themselves in large part because of their drone technology program. This provides a technological advantage and offset that can respond to Russian offensive operations. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are making up for a lack of artillery and for the delays in the supply of US and European weaponry, and attack tanks to Ukraine.

Ukraine has actually gained some territory, obviously, through the counter-offensive into Kursk. But it remains difficult for Ukraine actually to stop or blunt the continued Russian attacks.

*Kimberly Kagan sits down for an interview with Yoshihisa Komori in Tokyo on December 4. (©Sankei by Toshiyuki Sakamaki)*

If there is a ceasefire, who would it benefit?

If for some reason there should be a pause in fighting, it would benefit Russians more.

The Kremlin would be able to replenish its manpower, stocks, industrial capacity, and warfighting capability. Itt is now using these up every month.

Is the situation a stalemate?

"Positional warfare" is the technical term that I would like to use. It’s a Soviet term, which means that we're not seeing major advances in time or in space. There's no blitzkrieg. Instead, they're fighting for positions. The war is not stalemated, and it is likely that one side or the other side will restore maneuver.

Possibilities for an End to the Conflict

What is your view on which side should win?

It is very important that the side that restores maneuver is Ukraine. [Also,] it is existential for the United States, for its allies in Europe, but also for its allies in the Asia-Pacific, that Ukraine remains independent. It is also existential that Russia not be able to regain and restore its prewar military capabilities and then improve its defense industry and technology beyond what it has.

Do you have any scenario for ending the conflict in Ukraine?

I do and I do not.

Every time in the West, in the United States, or Europe, when we speak of peace negotiations or ceasefire, the Kremlin reiterates its maximalist objectives. [That is] the political elimination of independent Ukraine.

President Putin does not wish to end the war in Ukraine on terms that are other than the complete surrender of Ukraine to Russia. When President Putin speaks of peace, he is speaking of the violent occupation of Ukraine, the change of its government, and the disarmament of its military forces. He [Putin] is not ready to negotiate on terms that we, and like-minded people can accept.

We cannot change Mr Putin's will to fight, as he's an aggressor. [Therefore,] we need to work as like-minded people to reduce his capability to fight.

The best way to create the necessary conditions for a negotiated settlement that Ukraine, Europe, the US, Japan, and other like-minded people and states can accept, is to help Ukraine gain concrete battlefield advantages.

I think Ukraine should be able to take back all of its territory. There are strategically vital industry and agriculture, ports and nuclear facilities that must remain or return to Ukraine's control. Ukraine must be able to retain its independent, capable military at a level of capability that is sufficient to deter future Russian aggression.

Continues in part two: INTERVIEW | Japan Must Prepare For Conflict in Asia, Says Kimberly Kagan