Transcription
Well, Ukrainian defenses are struggling to hold in the country's East, with Russian troops slowly advancing across broad sections of the front lines. Moscow is pressing its advantage in manpower against exhausted Ukrainian troops. Russian missiles and drone attacks have devastated cities and crucial infrastructure just as winter sets in.
Let's take a look at the mounting pressure Ukraine is under and how long it can hold off Russian forces relentlessly escalating. Russian attacks have included more than 100 missiles fired over the weekend targeting Ukrainian infrastructure. The country has lost, by some estimates, 80% of its heating capacity as winter weather arrives, and over 50% of its power generation capacity.
On the front lines, Russia is expending huge amounts of weaponry and human life to make small but steady gains, losing up to 1,500 soldiers per day with human wave attacks on Ukrainian positions. Meanwhile, Ukrainian troops, dug in behind fortifications, are stretched thin trying to repel the assaults. Since April, when Russia ramped up frontline efforts, Moscow's forces have taken hundreds of square kilometers of Ukrainian territory, village by village, aiming to take the strategic city of Pcov, located at the intersection of key highways. Taking Pcov would make it much easier for Russia to make more gains in the East.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is struggling to defend its front lines amid falling morale. It has difficulty recruiting soldiers, which means it has to keep its own losses as low as possible. Ukraine has also faced ammunition shortages. There are fears that incoming U.S. president Donald Trump could reduce military support to keep the war going. Zelensky has been pushing the West to deliver more weapons as fast as possible.
If they will cut, I think we will lose. Of course, any way we will stay, we will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail, and I think it's not enough to survive.
While Ukraine is running low on soldiers and equipment, Russia has increased its production of tanks and missiles despite its staggering losses in manpower. British military intelligence estimates Moscow is also able to recruit about 30,000 soldiers a month, in part by offering large signing bonuses and by raising salaries. Ukraine is holding on to Russian territory it seized in August in the Ksk region, a potential bargaining chip in future ceasefire negotiations. The recent U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to fire longer-range attacks missiles into Russia may make it easier to hold that territory.
However, Russia has massed about 50,000 troops in the region, including about 10,000 North Korean forces, and is expected to mount a counter-offensive soon. Ukraine has a narrowing window to hold on to what it has, with another hard winter coming and with Trump taking power on January 20th. This adds even more pressure to push Russia back or make a deal.
Ukraine says Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile at the central city of Neo overnight. If confirmed, this would be the first time Moscow has used such a weapon in this war. This follows unconfirmed reports in British and Ukrainian media that Ukraine launched U.K. supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia's K border region. Moscow claims it intercepted two. This also follows recent approval from Washington for Kyiv to use longer-range U.S. built attacks missiles for strikes on Russian territory.
Let's look at this with military analyst Frank Ledwitch. Welcome, Frank. It's all about the missiles today. What should we make of Russia's apparent use for the first time of these intercontinental ballistic missiles against Ukraine?
Good morning, Phil. Yes, I do think this is an escalation, although we need to be clear about what they've actually done. The missile concerned is likely to be an RS-26 missile, which has been under development. It's just within the ICBM category but would more usually be regarded as an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Nonetheless, it is a sort of high-end weapon, and it has been designed to threaten Western capitals.
Although there was no nuclear warhead obviously on this, it is clearly a signal, I think, to Europe particularly that Russia has these missiles. Of course, they're prepared to use them, and they can hit targets with them. They did hit targets, and there doesn't seem to be much of a warhead on the re-entry vehicles. But it's certainly a formidable escalation, I think.
So we have these big things, and we can use them against Ukraine or perhaps you in the West. What do we make of Ukraine's use of these U.K. supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles?
It's not so much the missiles; Ukraine has been using these missiles for the last year or so against Russian targets in Ukraine, though in Crimea and in the occupied territories there in the South. The significance is, as everyone knows, that now they have been cleared to be used against Russia.
Russia's point is you don't just fire these missiles at targets. What you need is Western assistance not only to arm the missiles and target them but also to find targets for them. Therefore, that constitutes, as Putin would say, direct involvement of the West in attacks on what is indisputably Russian territory.
The weapons themselves, as I say, have been used before; they're not going to be a game changer. They amount to half a ton of explosives on the end of a rocket, like thousands of missiles that the Russians have fired into Ukraine. The significance lies in where they're being targeted and who's involved in the targeting. To that extent, that constitutes a significant uplift in the intensity of this conflict, and that's why we've seen this response by Russia with an even more formidable weapon.
Presumably, this is why there has been no confirmation from either the British or Ukraine about the use of these weapons?
Yes, there's been some experts who have been dampening this down, saying it's not an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is technically just about true. Nonetheless, it's a significant raising of the temperature, I think, because at the very least, what it does is say, "Look, we've got these missiles. They were in testing, and we've decided to test it on Ukraine."
Be under no illusion that our missiles work and that we're thinking in that direction. On the other hand, it's fair to say as well that while this is another step up the escalatory ladder, it's nowhere near anything that people should actively be concerned about right now. However, I think they should be concerned about the trajectory in which this war is taking.
Give us a sense, Frank, of the bigger picture. Where do things stand on the front line in this war?
It's been looking very poor for Ukraine for the last year or so. They are losing ground literally every day, several square kilometers every day, sometimes more than 10, 20, or 30 on occasions. The center of gravity isn't Kursk; that means the most important element of the war. It's always been in the South, and within that, the most important factor is the attritional war and the losses that both sides are taking—losses that Russia can afford far more than Ukraine.
We often hear about these huge losses that the Russians are supposed to be taking; maybe they are, but we never hear about the losses that Ukraine is taking. That's having an impact both domestically on political support for the war and, of course, more importantly, physically on the people involved and their will to fight. That knocks on into desertion and high desertion rates, which further complicate recruitment.
So, Ukraine is in a difficult situation. President Zelensky has admitted that and has said, "Without American help, we're going to lose," and that's certainly right.
Okay, thanks for guiding us through that. So, clearly, Frank, military analyst Frank Lich, thank you very much. Nice to be with you.