Roman Svitan: The Russian Army Is In Resource Trap

The Ukrainian forces will take advantage of this.

The Russian occupation army continued to storm the Kharkiv region but came into trouble. The forces and means of the enemy are not enough to conduct successful combat operations here, this is a resource trap. At the same time, this is an ideal opportunity for the Defence Forces to significantly reduce the resources of the enemy. Based on this logic, it is irrational to completely cleanse, close this direction at the moment, because the enemy is forced to pull its forces here from the priority eastern direction and incur heavy losses.

At the same time, the Ukrainian forces should concentrate not only on defence, but also on the counteroffensive. The Crimea peninsula, as well as the Kerch bridge, remain the most vulnerable for the occupiers, especially in a situation when Ukraine has received a new package of effective weapons from Western partners. Consequently, part of the forces can be sent to the southern part of the front.

This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA by pilot-instructor, Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in reserve, military expert Roman Svitan.

– The Institute for the Study of War suggested that the Kremlin dictator Putin has a "victory theory". It consists in prolonging the war and slowly moving forward, taking advantage of the situation when Western aid is coming to Ukraine in insufficient volumes and not fast enough. Thus, Putin intends to achieve his goal, which remains the same: the complete destruction of the Ukrainian state and identity. Do you agree that such a theory can really exist? And can the slow advance of the enemy really lead him to the goal?

– This is not a "theory of victory", these are forced measures, since any other actions of the Russians simply do not work for objective reasons. It is necessary to use a hundred nuclear air bombs to destroy the Ukrainian state – and there will be no Ukrainian state. But then there will be no Russia, because the whole world will perceive it very negatively.

Russia cannot use the mechanism of nuclear destruction, so the main mechanism that is used is the seizure of the state. But a hundred-million-strong state technically cannot seize a forty-million-strong state. There are objective factors that prevent the Russians from fulfilling their plans. But it is quite obvious that their task is the destruction of the Ukrainian nation, it is the genocide of the Ukrainian people.

But Russia does not have enough army to seize the territory of Ukraine, lack of human resources, no matter what anyone says. Because one thing is a hundred million people, and another thing is a professional army, which must be trained for years or even decades. Lack of funds for combat operations, weapons, ammunition, fuel, and so on.

Therefore, the only mechanism left is to press the point. This is not a "theory of victory", this is the only remaining measure in the arsenal of the Russian leadership. But they will press as much as they will press in the area where this can happen.

This also raises the issue of the pressure section. The length of the front is 1500 kilometers, but they can put pressure on a maximum of 100 kilometers. If we sum up all the fragments where they press, we get this figure. That is, they cannot even push the entire front line because of a lack of forces and means, and not because there is some great theory. Therefore, I consider this interpretation of the enemy's actions, proposed by ISW, to be incorrect.

If Putin had a 2-million-strong army, he wouldn't be pushing as hard as he's doing it now. He would go for a breakthrough with an exit to the center, with the capture of the left bank and so on.

Based on the real situation of the Russians, we need to counteract accordingly – to keep their pressure, if possible, to inflict maximum damage. If they press, it means that they rise above the surface of the earth, which means that they become vulnerable, and we can destroy them. And at the same time prepare counteroffensive actions in the other direction.

The best option is Crimea. For Russians, the Crimean direction is the most vulnerable from the point of view of defence. If we had as many forces and means as the Russians have now, we would already be in Crimea, in Kerch. But due to the shortages on our part, we are still only preparing for this direction.

– As for Crimea. Just now, on the night of July 1, explosions were heard in Crimea, causing panic. Local publics wrote about the work of air defence in Kerch and the smokescreen in the area of the ferry crossing and the Kerch bridge. Don't you think it's time, at the very least, to deal with the bridge?

– The fact is that we had to deal with it eight years ago, when they began to build it – to have no bridge there now. The question is why its destruction is delayed. Are we able? Yes we are. We have enough weapons to destroy the bridge.

We have at least half a dozen mechanisms for damaging the Kerch bridge with a 100% guarantee. For example, we have the 300-kilometer range ATACMS missiles, there is the Storm Shadow SCALP, which has already entered Kerch and destroyed the Askold rocket-carrying corvette. We have our own Neptunes, which have already destroyed targets at a distance of 300 kilometers – the port of the Caucasus for example, located next to the Kerch Bridge. We have drones.

That is, we have a serious range of weapons. Why our leadership does not give the command – from a military point of view, there is no answer at the moment.

– You said that the enemy cannot push the front along the entire length, since it is limited in its means. But we see that they are betting on the Kharkiv direction. So, the enemy made 16 assaults on June 30. Our defenders who are there say that the situation is very difficult, but it's under their control. Do you assume that the enemy will be able to squeeze out from this section of the front, and that it will be possible to close it?

– The question is whether it is necessary. From the point of view of military logic, this is not always necessary. At the moment, the enemy is in a vulnerable position. He tries to attack with forces that are not enough to perform this task, this is the so-called resource trap. When a task is set that requires more forces and means than they actually have, it means that the task will not be completed. This means that these forces and means will be destroyed, that's what we are doing.

From a military point of view, this state of the enemy is beneficial to us. If the Russians created a bridgehead for self-destruction, added resources there, if we destroy them on this bridgehead, this is beneficial to us. Maybe we shouldn't close this direction. If there is a need to take the best lines to destroy the Russians, you can carry out a number of counterattacks and take such positions.

The situation that has developed at the moment is becoming beneficial for us. I will say more – it would be beneficial for us if such sites were created in the Sumy region, in the Chernihiv region, in the Bohodukhovo area... Now it is important for us to stretch the front, to divert Russian forces from the main direction in the east.

If our actions in the Kharkiv region led to the fact that the Russians, who fell into the resource trap, would transfer reserves here from Donetsk, then perhaps this will become one of our main tasks. Then the enemy will have no mechanisms to press and advance in the east.

Therefore, I would not say that the main task is to squeeze them out of this direction. In reality, we need to deploy the front line from the Kharkiv region all the way to Belarus. The border with Russia should be the front line, and it should have been so for ten years. The faster we build an additional front line, the better. Especially since we are in defence mode, it is more convenient for us to solve these issues. And the Russians should be forced to attack, because the attack has a very high loss ratio.

Based on this logic, we should not squeeze them out, but destroy them, the more, the better. Recently, due to the increased supply of assistance from our partners, we can afford it in the Kharkiv direction.

– The enemy attacked the border area of the Sumy region again. According to the regional military administration, 21 explosions were recorded on the night of July 1. Could this be the beginning of the opening of a new front, this time in the Sumy region?

– The shelling is not an indicator that the enemy is preparing for the offensive. On the contrary. Perhaps they are trying to prevent our troops from deploying in this direction, digging in, building fortifications and so on.

Here it is necessary to take into account the targets of the shelling. If this is a border zone, then, most likely, they are trying to disrupt our ability to defend this section of the front. In general, it is possible to move from defence to offensive quite quickly. Therefore, I think that this is not an attempt to attack and deploy forces, but an attempt to prevent us from turning around.

I repeat: the entire border with Russia should become the front line. And someday it will be. The sooner, the better for us.

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail charter97@gmail.com