Slowly but steadily this summer, Russian troops are forging through Ukraine’s outgunned and undermanned defenses in a relentless onslaught, prompting the West to push for new weapons and strategies to shore up Kyiv.

That, in turn, has brought new threats by President Vladimir Putin to retaliate against the West — either directly or indirectly.

The moves by the West to blunt the offensive and the potential Kremlin response could lead to a dangerous escalation as the war drags through its third year — one that further raises the peril of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Probing offensive

Russia took advantage of its edge in firepower amid delays in U.S. aid to scale up attacks in several areas along the 1,000-km front. Relatively small units are probing Ukrainian defenses for weak spots, potentially setting the stage for a more ambitious push.

Russia’s offensive near Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, that began in May and worried Kyiv’s Western allies has apparently lost momentum after the Ukrainian army bolstered its forces in the area by redeploying troops from other sectors.

Meanwhile, Russia has made incremental but steady advances in the Donetsk region, including around the strategic hilltop town of Chasiv Yar, a gateway to parts of Donetsk still under Ukrainian control. Analysts say the fall of Chasiv Yar would threaten the key military hubs of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.

Putin declared that Moscow wasn’t seeking quick gains and would stick to the current strategy of advancing slowly.

Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute said that by stretching Ukrainian forces along a wide front, Russia is overcoming the limitations of its military that lacks the size and training for a major offensive.

The breadth of the strikes has forced Ukraine to spread out its artillery, “expending munitions to break up successive Russian attacks,” he said in an analysis. “Russia’s aim is not to achieve a grand breakthrough but rather to convince Ukraine that it can keep up an inexorable advance, kilometer by kilometer, along the front.” Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment said Russia’s apparent goal is to maintain pressure and try to stretch out Ukraine’s forces. He noted that even though Ukraine managed to stabilize the front line, it had to use reserves intended to be deployed elsewhere.

“It will take more and more time to actually regenerate Ukraine’s combat strength because of that,” he said in a recent podcast.

Moscow also has stepped up airstrikes on Ukraine’s energy facilities and other vital infrastructure with waves of missiles and drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the country had lost about 80% of its thermal power and one-third of its hydroelectric power in the strikes.

“This will be a growing problem when we talk about the future Ukraine’s economic viability,” Kofman said.

Watling said the shortage of air defenses is giving Ukraine a difficult choice between concentrating them to safeguard critical infrastructure, or protecting troops on the front.

“The persistence of Russia’s long-range strike campaign means that not only is the front being stretched laterally, but it is also being extended in its depth,” he said.

The West responds, the Kremlin counters

Washington and some NATO allies have responded to the offensive by allowing Kyiv to use Western weapons for limited strikes inside Russia. The U.S. has allowed Ukraine to use American weapons against military targets in Russia near Kharkiv and elsewhere near the border, but, to Kyiv’s dismay, Washington so far hasn’t given permission for strikes deeper in Russia.

French President Emmanuel Macron and some other Western officials argue that Kyiv has the right to use their equipment to attack military assets anywhere in Russia. There also has been talk by Macron and the leaders of NATO’s Baltic members — but not the U.S. — of deploying troops to Ukraine.

Putin warns that this would be a major escalation, and he threatened to retaliate by providing weapons to Western adversaries elsewhere in the world.

He reinforced that argument by signing a mutual defense pact with North Korea in June and holding the door open for arms supplies to Pyongyang.

He declared that just as the West says Ukraine can decide how to use Western weapons, Moscow could provide arms to North Korea and “similarly say that we supply something to somebody but have no control over what happens afterward” — an apparent hint at Pyongyang’s role as arms trader.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, noted Moscow could arm anyone who considers the U.S. and its allies their enemies, “regardless of their political beliefs and international recognition.” Another threat of escalation followed a Ukrainian attack with U.S.-made ATACMS missiles that killed four and injured over 150 in Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. Russia’s Defense Ministry warned it could take unspecified measures against U.S. drones over the Black Sea that provide intelligence to Ukraine.

The nuclear threat and Putin’s long game. Putin said it was wrong for NATO to assume that Russia won’t use its nuclear arsenal, reaffirming it will use “all means” if its sovereignty and territorial integrity are threatened.

He also warned that Moscow was pondering possible changes to its doctrine that specifies when it resorts to nuclear weapons.

Underscoring that, Russia held military drills with battlefield nuclear weapons involving Belarus. Last year, Moscow deployed some of those weapons to Belarus to try to discourage Western military support for Ukraine.

A military defeat in Ukraine, Putin said, would deal a deadly blow to Russian statehood, and he vowed to press his goals “to the end.”

He declared that for Russia to halt the fighting, Ukraine must withdraw its troops from the four regions that Moscow annexed in 2022, an idea Kyiv and its allies dismissed. He also said Ukraine must abandon its bid to join NATO.

Hawkish Russian commentators criticized Putin for failing to respond forcefully to NATO ramping up support for Kyiv and allowing the West to continuously push back Russia’s red lines. Some argued that if the damage grows from Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia with longer-range Western missiles, Moscow should hit NATO assets.

Vasily Kashin, a Moscow-based defense analyst, noted that while Ukraine already had used Western weapons to inflict limited damage, Putin will “have to do something if there are cruise missile strikes deep inside Russian territory resulting in significant casualties.” Russia could respond by targeting Western drones or U.S. spy satellites, or also strike some NATO countries’ assets in overseas territories to minimize triggering an all-out conflict with the alliance, Kashin said.

Other Russian commentators argued, however, that such action fraught with triggering a direct conflict with NATO isn’t in Moscow’s interests.

Moscow-based security analyst Sergei Poletaev said the Kremlin aims to steadily drain Ukrainian resources to force Kyiv into accepting a peace deal on Russia’s terms.

While nothing spectacular is happening on the front line, he said, “constant dropping wears away a stone.”

Moscow’s military advantage allows it to “maintain pressure along the entire front line and make new advances while waiting for Ukraine to break down,” he said in a commentary Lacking the resources for a major offensive, the Kremlin has opted for slow advances, aiming to “keep pressure on Ukraine while warding off the West from direct involvement in hostilities,” Poletaev said.

“We must walk the razor’s edge between our victory and a nuclear war,” he said.

The story so far: Ukraine, which launched a counteroffensive against the invading Russian troops with advanced western weapons and NATO-trained soldiers in June, has made incremental territorial gains, but is yet to clinch a major breakthrough. Three months later, as the offensive grinds on, the Ukrainians have said that they would continue fighting to reclaim the land lost to the Russians and have asked for more military aid from the West. The U.S. and its allies seem willing to provide more assistance, but there is scepticism on whether Ukraine would meet its military objectives.

What was Ukraine’s original plan?

Ukraine had prepared for months before it launched the counteroffensive in June. In the preceding months, its Western allies had supplied highly advanced weapons, including Patriot missile defence systems, HIMAR and MLRS rockets, Stryker and Bradley armoured vehicles, Challenger and Leopard 2 main battle tanks and Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles, besides artillery shells and ammunition. The plan, as leaked U.S. classified documents show, was to conduct a classic blitzkrieg — a lightning operation with an armoured strike force piercing through Russia’s lines of defence, capturing territories and delivering a blow to the Russian positions in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Kyiv opened three axes in its counteroffensive — Orikhiv in the south (in Zaporizhzhia); Velyka Novosilka in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk border area in the middle of the frontline and Bakhmut in Donetsk (east). The main objective was to reach Melitopol and the Sea of Azov to cut off Russia’s “land bridge” from the mainland to Crimea — the Black Sea peninsula it annexed in 2014 through a controversial referendum — and gain territories in the east. If Russia loses Melitopol, it would put pressure on its hold on Crimea, disrupt its supply lines and allow the Ukrainians to target Berdyansk and Mariupol further north.

What happened to the strategy?

Ukraine’s plan to take a quick victory against Russian forces was doomed to fail from the very beginning, wrote John Mearsheimer, American international relations scholar. He said that there were 11 blitzkrieg operations since modern tanks arrived on the battlefield and in most cases, the attacker with substantially higher capabilities against the defender tasted victory, what he calls an “unfair fight”. In the case of Ukraine, Russia had built three lines of defences along the frontline with trenches, landmines, heavy weapons and other fortifications. The prolonged battle for Bakhmut (which culminated in the Russians taking the city in May) pinned down thousands of Ukrainian troops in the eastern city, while providing more time to the Russians to build their defences. Ukraine, which is reliant on old Soviet-style fighter jets, also lacked advanced air cover, which is imperative for any blitzkrieg operation.

So, when Ukraine finally launched the counteroffensive, its troops jumped straight into the traps laid by Russia. According to a report in The New York Times, Ukraine lost some 20% of the weaponry it got from the West in the first two weeks of the counteroffensive. As Ukraine realised that the blitzkrieg was not working, it changed its tactics from attempting for a major thrust into the Russian defences to small operations targeting the rear of Russia’s military machine, while employing long-range fire to attack the enemy’s supply lines. This allowed Ukraine to take some small villages along the frontline, but breaching the Russian defences remains a distant goal.

How did Russia slow down Ukrainian advances?

In the initial phase of the war, Russia made a lot of mistakes. Its plan was to capture territories quickly and hold them with a limited number of forces (some 1,90,000 troops were mobilised for the invasion). But when the Ukrainians resisted, denying a quick victory to Russia, it both exposed Moscow’s weakness and opened new avenues for the West to step in. Last year, Russia was forced out of Kharkiv by a swift Ukrainian advance; and later on, Moscow decided to pull back its troops from the western bank of Dnipro in Kherson. Since then, Russia has changed its focus from offensive operations to defence, its traditional forte. Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, ordered a partial mobilisation, drafting some 3,00,000 men, who the Russians hoped would solve the manpower shortage that plagued their initial thrust into Ukraine.

Since the Kherson pullout, Russia’s territorial advances were limited to Donetsk — it took Soledar in January and Bakhmut in May, in operations mostly involving the Wagner private military company. Besides trenches filled with explosives and miles-deep trip-wired or booby-trapped mines, Russian troops also used the ISDM Zemledeliye mine-laying system that spread mines from rockets at a rapid pace. On the frontline, Russia used this tactic, according to Ukrainian officers, to rapidly re-mine cleared areas, often trapping advancing Ukrainian troops within circles of minefields.

In the early stage of the war, Russia lost dozens of its fighter jets; now, analysts note, the Russian Air Force remains intact, though it still lacks air superiority. They also use precision guided bombs, released from low altitude jets or attack helicopters, targeting positions well beyond Ukraine’s defence lines. They have also deployed attack helicopters, anti-tank missiles and artillery on the frontline, which made advances extremely difficult for the Ukrainian troops. As Ukraine makes slow progress on the battlefield, it also gives the Russians time to refortify the defence lines or re-mine the cleared areas.

What has been the West’s response?

The U.S. intelligence agencies had expressed their scepticism about the counteroffensive well before it was launched. In February, leaked U.S. intelligence documents showed the bleak assessment of the counteroffensive by Washington. According to documents, labelled as “top secret”, U.S. agencies had assessed that Ukraine’s operation would result “only in modest territorial gains” and could fall “well short” of its goals. The U.S., which has supplied military aid worth $40 billion to Ukraine since the war began, seemed to have realised weeks into the counteroffensive that things were not looking good for Ukraine. In early July, the Biden administration announced that it would send cluster munitions to Ukraine, which have been banned by over 100 countries for the indiscriminate harm they cause to civilians. As Ukraine’s offensive went on with meagre results, questions started rising from allies about its tactics. According to a Financial Times report, U.S. officials say Ukraine was “risk-averse” and failed to execute an effective campaign, combining infantry, artillery and air power. Ukrainian soldiers challenged the U.S. criticism asking when was the last time American troops fought a conventional war with an equal force on the battlefield.

Gen. Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a recent interview that the U.S. has been clear about the challenges before Ukraine. “I had said a couple of months ago that this offensive was going to be long, it’s going to be bloody, it’s going to be slow,” he said. “And that’s exactly what it is: long, bloody and slow, and it’s a very, very difficult fight.” A latest U.S. intelligence assessment stated that the counteroffensive would fail to reach Melitopol, a key Ukrainian goal, according to a report in Washington Post that cited unnamed American officials.

But these difficulties do not mean that the U.S. is having a rethink in its approach. Last week, President Joe Biden decided to send long-range army tactical missile systems (ATACMS) to Ukraine, which would allow Kyiv to target Russian positions well beyond the frontline. U.S.-supplied Abrams main battle tanks are set to enter the battlefield soon, according to the Pentagon. President Biden is also seeking an additional $24 billion in aid for Ukraine.

Where does it leave Russia?

The U.S. had a twin approach towards Russia’s invasion. One was to arm Ukraine to beat Russia in the battlefield and the other was to weaken Russia through economic sanctions. This approach has had mixed results. The way Russia is withstanding Ukraine’s counteroffensive suggests that Moscow has learnt from its early mistakes and is adapting itself rapidly to new battlefield realities. Russia also came up with ways to work around sanctions and export controls so that its defence production would not be affected.

If Russia could make 100 tanks a year before the war, now they are manufacturing 200, according to a recent NYT report. Russia is also on track to make two million artillery shells a year, twice the number of shells it produced before the war, according to the report. But at the same time, sanctions have affected Russia’s economy in general. Russia has also taken huge casualties. According to U.S. estimates, Russia’s military has suffered greatly with more than 2,70,000 killed or wounded.

Besides, in recent months, Ukraine has also taken the war to Crimea, the Black Sea and even to Moscow through drones and missiles. Particularly in the Black Sea, Russia’s fleet, which is based off Crimea, comes under repeated Ukrainian attacks.

The prolonged war in Europe has contributed to an erosion of Russian power in its periphery, particularly in the Caucasus (where Azerbaijan dismantled a Russia-mediated ceasefire and took over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory using force). Russia has also helplessly witnessed NATO expanding further towards its border after it launched the Ukraine war. However, despite these setbacks, Mr. Putin seems determined to continue fighting a war of attrition, while Ukraine is trying to escape attrition with quick battlefield gains. In either scenario, peace remains a distant idea.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of N.Y., right, at Capitol Hill on September 21, 2023, in Washington.
| Photo Credit: AP

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a whirlwind return visit to Washington on Thursday to shore up U.S. support for Ukraine, this time facing some Republicans who are now questioning the flow of American dollars that for 19 months has helped keep his troops in the fight against Russian forces.

Mr. Zelenskyy, in long-sleeve olive drab, came to the Capitol to talk privately with Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate at a time that the world is watching Western support for Kyiv. He will also meet with President Joe Biden at the White House and will speak with U.S. military leaders at the Pentagon.

House Republican leaders promised tough questions for Mr. Zelenskyy on how he plans to win Ukraine’s counteroffensive against invading Russian forces. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans notably chose not to join in greeting the Ukrainian president before the cameras, leaving House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries to escort Mr. Zelenskyy into the Capitol.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul said Zelenskyy’s message for a bipartisan group of House lawmakers Thursday was “that he’s winning.”

Speaking to reporters, Mr. McCaul played down growing Republican dissent on continuing to support Ukraine with money and arms, saying, “The majority of the majority support this.”

But Mr. McCaul said lawmakers needed confidence that there was a clear strategy for victory for Ukraine.

“War of attrition is not going to win this,” Mr. McCaul said. “That’s what Putin wants,” he said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “He wants to break the will of the American people and the Europeans.”

It is Mr. Zelenskyy’s second visit to Washington since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and comes as Mr. Biden’s request to Congress for an additional $24 billion for Ukraine’s military and humanitarian needs is hanging in the balance. Back home, Russian launched its heaviest strikes in a month in the hours before Mr. Zelenskyy’s arrival at Congress, killing three, igniting fires and damaging energy infrastructure as Russian missiles and artillery pounded cities across Ukraine.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called the Ukrainian president “our best messenger” in persuading U.S. lawmakers to keep vital U.S. money and weapons coming.

“It’s really important for members of Congress to be able to hear directly from the president about what he’s facing in this counteroffensive,” Mr. Kirby told reporters Wednesday, “and how he’s achieving his goals, and what he needs to continue to achieve those goals.”

Mr. Biden has called on world leaders to stand strong with Ukraine, even as he faces domestic political divisions at home. A hard-right flank of Republicans, led by former President Donald Trump, Biden’s chief rival in the 2024 race for the White House, is increasingly opposed to sending more money overseas.

Mr. Zelenskyy faces challenges in Europe as well as cracks emerge in what had been a largely united Western alliance behind Ukraine.

Late Wednesday, Poland’s prime minister said his country is no longer sending arms to Ukraine, a comment that appeared aimed at pressuring Kyiv and put Poland’s status as a major source of military equipment in doubt as a trade dispute between the neighboring states escalates.

Mr. Zelenskyy’s visit comes with U.S. and world government leaders watching as Ukrainian forces struggle to take back territory that Russia gained over the past year. Their progress in the next month or so before the rains come and the ground turns to mud could be critical to rousing additional global support over the winter. Russian President Putin, who believes he can outlast allied backing for Kyiv, will be ready to capitalize if he sees Ukraine is running low on air defense or other weapons

Since the start of the war, most members of Congress supported approving four rounds of aid to Ukraine, totaling about $113 billion, viewing defense of the country and its democracy as an imperative, especially when it comes to containing Putin. Some of that money went toward replenishing U.S. military equipment sent to the frontlines.

Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, who traveled to Kyiv this week, said cutting off U.S. aid during the Ukrainians’ counteroffensive would be “catastrophic” to their efforts.

“That would clearly be the opening that Putin is looking for,” Mr. Kelly said Wednesday. “They cannot be successful without our support.”

The political environment has shifted markedly since Mr. Zelenskyy addressed Congress last December on his first trip out of Ukraine since the war began. He was met with rapturous applause for his country’s bravery and surprisingly strong showing in the war.

His meeting with senators on Thursday took place behind closed doors in the Old Senate Chamber, a historic and intimate place of importance at the U.S. Capitol, signifying the respect the Senate is showing the foreign leader.

Mr. Zelenskyy received a warmer welcome from both parties on his stop in the Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer flanked him as he walked in. A few lawmakers of both parties wore clothes with blue and yellow, the colors of the Ukrainian flag.

Mr. McCarthy, who faces more opposition within his Trump-aligned ranks to supporting Ukraine, arranged a separate meeting with Zelenskyy, with a smaller bipartisan group of lawmakers and committee chairmen.

“I will have questions for President Zelenskyy,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters before the visit.

The House speaker said he wanted more accountability for the money the U.S. has already approved for Ukraine before moving ahead with more.

And, Mr. McCarthy said, he wants to know, “What is the plan for victory?”

Rep. Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland who attended the House meeting with Zelenskyy and lawmakers, said that Mr. McCarthy made no promises but that Republicans and Democrats were united in supporting Ukraine.

“I think the message was not necessarily a promise but a determination to make sure that we could help Ukraine win this war for freedom and for all of us,” he said.