Could the Ukraine Crisis Turn into a Hot War?

After the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych, who won the elections in 2010 and became the fourth president of Ukraine, refused to sign the EU Association Agreement in 2013, supporters of the West took to the streets. When pro-Russian supporters took to the streets in response to this, internal turmoil arose in Ukraine. Yanukovych, who could not prevent these events, had to flee to Russia.

Realizing that it could not forever prevent Ukraine from separating from itself and approaching the West, Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and supported the capture of the eastern Donbass region by pro-Moscow rebels. After that, the tension between Russia and Ukraine increased day by day and many clashes took place between the separatists and the Ukrainian army.

With the intervention of the West, a ceasefire was agreed between the parties at a summit held in Paris in 2019. Despite this agreement, the clashes between the separatists and the Ukrainian army on the contact line continued. Negotiations were resumed between the parties in 2020, and a comprehensive ceasefire agreement was signed as a result of these negotiations. However, the tension has not been completely eliminated.

This tension flared up again after the crisis experienced after the Belarusian elections on August 9, 2020, and turned into a major crisis with the potential for war in 2021, when Russia started sending military units to Ukraine's borders. Because at least 100,000 Russian soldiers gathered near Ukraine for a possible invasion operation from three directions. These regions; Western Russia and the occupied Donbass region; It consists of Belarus and Crimea.

Thereupon, Ukraine announced to the world that Russia was planning a military operation against itself and started preparations for war. The same claim has been voiced by many western countries, especially the USA and England. Russia, on the other hand, has declared that it has no intention of attacking Ukraine, that it only concerns itself where to deploy its soldiers in its own country and where to conduct exercises, and accused the West of arming Ukraine against itself.

After this political and military tension, some Western countries started to provide a large number of weapons to Ukraine. For example, the UK has announced that it has decided to supply new generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW) to Kiev and will temporarily send military personnel to Ukraine to teach them how to use these weapons.

British NLAW Anti-Tank Gun

The anti-tank guns sent by the UK are the last generation guns that work with the logic of fire and forget. With these weapons weighing 12.5 kilograms, a single soldier can destroy a heavy armored vehicle with a single shot at a distance between 20 meters and 800 meters. Although this weapon is very important in terms of anti-tank defense, its relatively short range of 800 meters creates an important weakness. Because the firing range of Russian tanks is much longer than that.

For example, the maximum firing range of the 125 millimeter gun of the Russian T-90 tank is 10 kilometers. There is also an air defense machine gun with a diameter of 12.7 millimeters on the tank. The effective range of this machine gun is 1500 meters against air targets and 2000 meters against ground targets. Its maximum range is 6000 meters.

The tank is also equipped with a 7.62 millimeter machine gun with an effective range of 1500 meters and a maximum range of 3800 meters.[1] Considering these ranges, it is clearly seen that it is not possible for the anti-tank gun sent by the British to approach this tank in open terrain.

(1) For detailed information about the technical information of the T-90 tank, see. https://www.facebook.com/TurkSavunmaVeSilahTeknolojileri/posts/88493357160127

Like the British, the Americans provide arms aid to Ukraine at 6 o'clock. The Americans are sending Stinger missiles, an air defense weapon that can be fired from the shoulder, with the Javelin anti-tank gun, one of the new generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW). In addition, with the approval of America; From the Baltic states, Estonia sends Javelin anti-tank missiles, while Latvia and Lithuania send Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

The Stinger anti-aircraft missile, with a diameter of 70 millimeters, a weight of 15.2 kilograms and a range of 4800 meters, has proven its effectiveness against fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft in battles in many regions.

Stinger AA Gun

Javelin, with a diameter of 127 millimeters, a weight of 11.8 kilograms and a range of 2500 meters, is an anti-tank weapon system that works with the logic of fire and forget and uses IR seeker technology. Although its average range is 2500 meters, it has been proven in the tests that it can hit targets at a distance of up to 4,750 meters.

Javelin Anti-Tank Gun

Due to both its longer range and the tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead, the Javelin is a more deadly weapon than the British anti-tank gun. However, it is also a tactical weapon.[2] Why the UK and USA sent these tactical weapons instead of fighter jets, tanks and other heavy weapons seems to be a topic worth considering.

In order to understand the reason for this, it is considered useful to look at the concepts implemented by Russia, Ukraine and Western states. Concepts are courses of action that achieve the attainment of targets or the desired end state with current strength. For this reason, strategies are often referred to by applied concepts. Concepts such as deterrence, coercion, renunciation, maneuver, attrition, indirect attitude and control are the main strategic concepts.

When the developments are examined, it is understood that Ukraine applies the concept of discouragement. Withdrawal; It is the use of military power in varying proportions to change the behavior of an adversary. It is an attempt to reverse an emerging movement or restore the status quo. For example, the activities carried out to remove a state that has occupied a region from the occupied region are activities within the scope of surrender. Withdrawal entails actions taken in a way that initiates conflicts or ends the problem before anyone gets hurt, depending on whether the party to be discouraged responds.

Ukraine's Crimea, Donbass and Donetsk regions are out of his hands. Crimea was occupied by Russia; the other two regions were captured by the separatist Russians backed by Russia. Here, as in Georgia, Russia has used its army and the separatists supported by its army, de facto separating the regions that it considers to be of strategic importance from a neighboring state.

Ukraine cannot eliminate this occupation and the de facto situation created by the separatists by using direct force. For this reason, it tries to discourage Russia and the separatists from these actions. For this purpose, it has 350 thousand soldiers under arms. He is trying to strengthen his army in terms of weapons and equipment. In this context, it also imported Turkish SİHAs, which proved their importance in Karabakh after Syria and Libya. In accordance with the concept of renunciation, it uses these SİHAs from time to time against separatists in the Donbass region.

Ukraine also makes a great effort to ensure the enforcement of sanctions against the Russian occupation and to find support in international platforms. However, it takes care not to bring the tension to the level of a general war with Russia. For this reason, he has been opposing the statements of the officials of some Western states that war with Russia is inevitable and has been using a more restrained rhetoric.

Russia, on the other hand, applies the concept of coercion against both Ukraine and the Western world. Force; He forces the opponent to make a certain move by threatening to use force. It must be shown to the adversary that war is taken for granted and that, in case of war, superior military power can seize strategic targets. Coercion, which requires the use of an offensive stance, is to compel an enemy to act differently from what he would do, including the use of limited force to remove the threat. It mainly relies on the threat of using force to influence the enemy's decision makers. The measures Turkey once implemented to remove Abdullah Öcalan from Syria are one of the best examples of a successful forced operation.

Russia thinks that NATO and the EU are trying to surround it and tries to prevent it. He showed how much he cares by actually intervening in Georgia, which is trying to join NATO and the EU in the Caucasus, and did the same in Ukraine in 2014. Despite this, Russia still does not feel safe. Because the Dnieper River line is an important border for Russia's security, not only physically but also psychologically.

If Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, these organizations, which Russia sees as a threat to itself, will pass to the east of the Dnieper. In addition, warships belonging to NATO and EU countries will have the opportunity to come to the bottom of Russia in the Black Sea and show up in Ukrainian ports. For this reason, Russia is trying to force the West to stop taking Ukraine into the EU and NATO, and to force Ukraine to stop joining these organizations.

The West, led by the USA and England, applies the concept of deterrence. Deterrence; It is a negative effect to discourage an enemy from performing a certain action. It is applied in order to give up the use of force by making the enemy believe that if he uses military force, his losses will be greater than his gains.

Deterrence requires the application of a defensive (defensive) attitude. Deterrence sometimes means that its very important resources can be attacked in order to convince the enemy that it cannot achieve its objectives by fighting. 

It may also be based on the threat of a gruesome punishment. This is why the USA and some European countries constantly repeat that if Russia attacks Ukraine, it will have to face the severe political, military and economic consequences.

The weapons they sent to Ukraine also support their implementation of the concept of deterrence. As it is understood from the military operation carried out in 2008 to occupy some parts of Georgia, Russia could not get rid of the historical understanding and reflexes of the Russian military culture. The Russians have never made a very important and unique contribution to the history of war. The Russian military vision was based on brute force, both in the Tsarist period and the Soviet period. In brute force, the important thing is numerical superiority. This superiority includes the number of soldiers, weapons, vehicles, armored units, missiles, etc. It is based on numerical superiority in all areas.

The struggle between Russia and the West during the cold war is also aimed at seizing this numerical superiority. For 70 years, Russia has tried to have more aircraft, ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads and armored units than the West. It would not be wrong to say that this obsession with numerical superiority permeates the souls of the Russians. He said, “Quantity itself is a quality.” It is possible to understand from Russian idioms such as This obsession is one of the main reasons for the collapse of the empires it established, as well as Russia's becoming an imperial power. For example, the Soviet Union collapsed because its economic capacity could not finance the expenditures made to finance this obsession with numerical superiority.

Digital obsession also has some problems in terms of strategy and tactical applications. For this reason, in the training we received at military schools during the Cold War, we learned that the Russian troops were frighteningly large in numbers, but we were consoled by their backwardness in terms of technology and strategic vision. As we learned at that time, the most basic attack method of the Russians was what they called the "nail tactic". This method was basically based on weakening the front with a very intense artillery and missile fire in a narrow area of ​​the enemy's defense line and breaking through the enemy front like a nail piercing the wood by attacking many armored units from this narrow area. When the front was split, it was envisaged that the armored divisions would be quickly penetrated through this rift hole and united with the airborne troops, which were lowered behind the enemy, so that the enemy would be surrounded and destroyed.

The operation they carried out in Georgia in 2008 shows that the Russians still use this method, albeit with minor differences. Although successful in Georgia, this method, which is based on the experiences of the First and Second World Wars, has very important weaknesses in itself. First of all, the necessity of air superiority for armored unit operations is a problem. It was also clearly seen in the 2010 Karabakh War that the armored units could not go beyond being a heavy burden for the country and an easier sight for the enemy and therefore easier to hit, without providing air superiority.

In armored unit operations, if air superiority cannot be fully achieved, at least a solid air defense system must be present. But it has also emerged in the two Iraqi operations led by the USA that the Russian air defense systems, which search and detect enemy planes with radar, could not show any presence in the face of modern air forces. These weapons were detected by the radar beams they emit and were destroyed in the first days of the conflict.

The Russians made use of these experiences and made some new short and medium range air defense weapons. However, these also served no purpose other than being an easy target for SİHAs in Syria, Libya and Karabakh. In this case, long-range air defense systems and shoulder-fired light air defense systems that can be used by single soldiers are left. It is understood that the "S" series air defense weapons worked, when Syria shot down a warplane flying in the Mediterranean. The fact that the weapons used by a single soldier work is understood from the fact that the mujahideen shot down many Russian planes and helicopters with such weapons during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent conflicts have been a great experience for the West. During this occupation, the Stinger air defense weapons provided by the USA ensured that dozens of Soviet planes and helicopters were shot down by the Mujahideen. Likewise, a large number of Russian tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed with the light anti-tank weapons given to the Mujahideen. The sending of a large number of light anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine should also be evaluated from this perspective.

The West, who gave these weapons and announced this to everyone through the press and media organs, to Russia; “Yes, you can invade Ukraine, but as a result of the attrition concept that the Ukrainians will apply both during and after the invasion, the casualties will be so low. 

It will be heavy, just as the trauma of Afghanistan prepared the end of the Soviet Union, the trauma you will experience in Ukraine may cause the disintegration of the Russian Federation.” It is possible to say that it gives a message in the form of

Although the message is so clear and unequivocal, it seems that the West does not fully agree on what Russia will do. The West is also divided on what to do. It is possible to understand this from the fact that the former Soviet republics and Slavic origin states, led by Germany, follow a different policy than the USA and England.

Unlike Germany, it is understood that there are different opinions about the intention and purpose of the Russians and what to do in the face of it in the USA and England, which exhibit more hawkish rhetoric and actions. For example, some military experts say that Russia will target Ukraine's critical infrastructure, using its long-range attack capacity, if possible, without engaging in an actual conflict.

Some military experts also predict that the strategic aim of the Russian occupation is to seize a land corridor between Donbass and Crimea, and therefore it will carry out a short-term and narrow-scoped operation. I think the US intelligence agencies should have received intelligence in this direction and informed the president. The US administration must have thought of not giving a big reaction to such a limited operation as the president made a statement to the press in this way, but had to change his rhetoric after Ukraine's harsh reaction.

According to some experts, Russia has planned all possibilities, from hot conflicts to information warfare and other asymmetric attack methods. According to this plan; Attacks with long-range precision-guided munitions, air attacks, electronic warfare and intense artillery will quickly neutralize Ukraine's command and control system, thus rendering Ukraine's defense capabilities ineffective. When Russia collapses the Ukrainian defense and upsets its political and military balance, it will quickly seize the regions it wants with its armed civil resistance groups and Russian special forces mingled with them.

Whatever Western military experts say, as I understand from the developments that have taken place, the parties apply the above-mentioned concepts, not a concept that foresees a hot conflict. Neither of these concepts predicts a large, violent, prolonged collision. For this reason, unless there is an extraordinary development, the Ukraine crisis is unlikely to turn into a regional or general war.

But it's still useful to leave a margin of caution. Because in 1912, the Ottoman foreign minister, when asked about the rumors that "Balkan states might wage an alliance against the Ottoman Empire", flatly denied this and said, "I am as confident as I believe in the Balkans." he said. The next morning, the Balkan War began.

On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that when Europe was divided into two blocks in the past, world wars arose due to unexpected simple events. For example, the First World War flared up when a hitherto unknown member of an unknown Serbian nationalist organization killed the crown prince of Austria-Hungary. For this reason, efforts should be made to ensure that the parties are restrained, that the parties who are sensible and able to talk to everyone engage in mediation work, and that the crisis is eliminated as soon as possible.

[2] Pictures and weapon specifications are from the January issue of Shephard News. See. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/west-bolsters-ukrainian-arms-stocks-as-russian-thr/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=This+Week+s+Defence+News+Highlights&utm_campaign =Newsletter%3A+Weekly+News+Highlights+%2828+Jan+2022++Rohde+++Schwarz+webinar%29