For more than a month, active hostilities have been going on on Ukrainian soil. The invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine was the largest military event on the European continent since the Second World War. At the same time, the strategy and tactics of conducting combat operations of the parties, both on the battlefield and the economic and diplomatic fronts, often come as a surprise to military analysts and experts. Let's try to understand the situation that developed from the end of March till the beginning of April.
The military environment, having recovered from the surprise of the first days of the invasion, the Ukrainian armed forces were able to stabilize the situation by the beginning of March and frustrate the enemy’s plans to quickly capture the capital and major cities. But did the Russian military-political leadership even plan a “blitzkrieg” in Ukraine? Apparently, yes.
Such planning can be judged by several indirect signs. Firstly, the overlap of airspace over the western regions of the Russian Federation was initially provided only until March 8. Later, this period was constantly shifted and the ban has not yet been lifted. This could only mean that the Kremlin expected to end active hostilities in at least the east of Ukraine in two weeks.
This is also evidenced by the Russian tactics of the first days, when the raid columns of light armoured vehicles, which entered Kharkiv twice, were subjected to fire damage and were forced to retreat. Large tank and mechanized formations went into the gap, leaving behind the support columns, which were often destroyed by Ukrainian troops, and the equipment was thrown by the Russians on the roads and in the open field. About a week after the start of the war, the invading forces changed tactics and moved to a slower and more cautious advance, concentrating their efforts in southeastern Ukraine and around Kyiv. At the same time, near Kyiv, the formations of the Russians, after several unsuccessful attempts to surround the city, switched to positional actions. A similar situation has developed in the Kharkiv region, where the Russian army in recent weeks has concentrated on massive shelling of the city while conducting positional battles in the suburbs. Otherwise, the situation is developing in the eastern sector of the confrontation in the Donbass.
The armed forces of the Russian Federation, with the support of the formations of the so-called "DNR" and "LNR" ("DNR" and "LNR" formed in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014-2015 and enjoy the support of Russia), began a massive assault on the positions of Ukrainian troops along the entire line front. To date, the main hostilities are taking place in the area of Mariupol, Avdiivka, Severodonetsk, as well as Izyum in the Kharkiv region. This region, according to all estimates, should become the site of the most fierce fighting in the coming weeks.
In the south of the Russian Federation, after the capture of Kherson, as well as parts of the Nikolaev and Zaporozhye regions and having suffered significant losses, the Armed Forces of Russia switched to positional warfare with periodic probing of the defence of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
In general, for more than a month of the war, the Russians did not achieve strategic success in any of the directions, having managed to capture only one regional centre - Kherson. At the same time, the battle for Mariupol led to the destruction of the city and a humanitarian catastrophe for residents, and the city's garrison continues to put up fierce resistance.
In the coming days, we should expect attempts by the RF Armed Forces to turn the tide in their favour, at least in the eastern direction, to have a stronger position in the further negotiation process. NATO support - is Ukraine satisfied?
Since the first day of the war, NATO countries and the West as a whole have provided significant support to the Ukrainian armed forces, national guard and territorial defence. This support is expressed in the supply of a wide range of weapons and protective equipment - primarily anti-tank systems and MANPADS, types of small arms, drones and other military ammunition.
At the same time, the leadership of Ukraine has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of supplies of aviation and heavy weapons - primarily air defence systems, tanks and artillery. Ukraine's Western partners evade a direct response to these requests and the refusals were perpetuated by the Ukrainian military's lack of technical skills to use complex foreign-made combat systems.
This is a rather controversial position, since, for example, Western armoured vehicles were massively supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan already during active hostilities and were used by the armies of these countries. In general, in the absence of supplies of Western armoured vehicles and the gradual knocking out of our own, the mobility and striking power of the Ukrainian army will decrease, which may adversely affect the conduct of counter-offensive operations. It should be noted that many Eastern European countries that are members of NATO are armed with various modifications of Soviet T-72 tanks, such as PT-91 Twardy (Poland), T-72M4 CZ (Czech Republic) and others, as well as a large number of other equipment on base of samples well known to our military.
But the situation with armoured vehicles is the same, as with fighter aircraft and air defence. Requests for the provision of such weapons systems are either rejected or ignored. To date, Turkey provides Ukraine with the most powerful combat systems - attack drones.
The use of weapons of mass destruction by Russia - is it real?
The topic of Russia's possible use of chemical or nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian army and population is increasingly being raised in the media and expert circles. The Russian Federation has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, which includes both strategic and tactical charges. The use of strategic nuclear forces (strategic nuclear weapons) against Ukraine can most likely be ruled out in the current situation since this will not bring any significant success to the Russian side, but, on the contrary, will lead to several significant costs for the Russian Federation itself, including radiation contamination of territories, mass destruction of the civilian population, the partial defeat of their armed forces located in the conflict zone.
The use of tactical charges has a certain, but low degree of probability provided that a critical situation arises for large formations of the Russian army, a large-scale entry of NATO into the war on the side of Ukraine, and the transfer of hostilities to the territory of Russia itself.
Approximately the same conditions can lead to the use of chemical weapons. The number of this type of weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation is not known for certain. According to official figures, Russia destroyed all of its stockpiles of poisonous substances in 2017 as part of the implementation of the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. In 2010, the Russian Federation had 19,336 tons of such weapons.
It is worth noting that since the beginning of the invasion of the territory of Ukraine, the presence of formations of the RCBZ troops of the Russian Federation has not been recorded. In any case, none of the parties to the conflict has yet officially announced the presence of these troops.
Negotiation process - is there any hope?
In general, negotiations between the parties since the beginning of the war have been without tangible results. This was due, first of all, to the presence of irremovable contradictions in their starting positions. Some progress has only been achieved with regard to the creation of humanitarian corridors for the exit of the civilian population from the zones of the most fierce battles. At the same time, the opening of such corridors was often disrupted.
A certain breakthrough in the negotiation process occurred on March 29 in Istanbul, when compromises were reached on political issues, primarily on the implementation of Ukraine's neutral status. The Russian side also announced a "reduction of military activity in the Kyiv and Chernihiv directions", which is allegedly carried out "in order to increase mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations."
At the same time, there is no complete withdrawal of troops from the territory of the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions. Part of the troops is indeed withdrawn towards the Belarusian border, part remains in position. The withdrawn troops can be used by the Russian Federation in other theatres of military operations, in particular, in the JFO zone.
In addition, the negotiation processes are criticized by a part of Ukrainian society.
