“The Russians could get anywhere”

“There’s a difference between morale and fatigue,” he says Glen Grant on the phone from a cafe in central Kyiv. He explains that no one walks with their head down in the Ukrainian capital. “People work, drive and walk as if nothing had happened: beyond the shop window, I see exactly what I would see in any European capital.” The problem is not morale. “One can have high spirits but be physically or mentally exhausted.” Ukrainians feel this way today, according to the retired British colonel.

Grant was first advisor of the Ministry of Defense of Kyiv after the start of hostilities in Donbass in 2014 and then continued to advise several Ukrainian institutions as an expert in the field defence. Currently, he teaches strategy courses at the Business School of Riga University.

The exhaustion – notes Grant – is evident at the front, where “things are getting really bad“, says Grant. A rout could be imminent. Not because the Russians are conducting who knows what offensive but because “Ukrainian soldiers lack not only weapons and ammunition but also the basic equipment essential for the front line”. The breakdown of the front “it would allow the Russians to move their troops and get anywhere in Ukraine, and Odessa could be a target.”

The war expert only expects new ones help USA they arrive quickly. Nor that things change much once they arrive: “The arrival of weapons and ammunition is important, but the Atacms they will not be useful to the infantry, who are facing a preponderant number of enemies and can no longer count on supplies of even the most banal material. On the line, it’s the numbers that count: hand grenades, grenade launchers, night vision goggles, not high-tech missiles.”

Colonel, Ukrainian Chief of Staff Oleksandr Syrskyi admitted that things are getting worse and Moscow is gaining ground. How do you see it?

“The situation has really deteriorated a lot in recent days. Ukrainian forces are increasingly outnumbered, because Russia is throwing more and more reserves onto the front.”

In acknowledging the difficulties, the Ukrainian high command repeats that the situation is however under control. Is this a way to mitigate a reality?

“The narrative of the high command is sugarcoated. The reality is that no one is in control of anything anymore. As almost always happens in war. That said, it is difficult to predict whether the Ukrainian soldiers (Grant, as a good English colonel, calls them “boys”, or boys, ed) will continue to retreat or hold positions longer. I think it will take a couple of weeks to understand what’s really going on. It’s all about whether they can be replenished, and quickly. If that doesn’t happen, they will have to retreat further. It’s not a question of courage or anything else. It’s all about war potential.”

How important is Krasnohorivka, on the Donbass quadrant? It hosts an operations center of the Kyiv army and the Russians are now at the gates of the city…

“It’s important. But all the sectors of the front at risk of breakthrough are important. For every village that falls, the Russians have one more chance to proceed towards the west and north-west, the directions of their advance.”

Are we witnessing the harbingers of a definitive offensive by the Russians?

“There are no “main offensives”: Russia seeks success. Wherever success can be achieved, the offensive is concentrated there. If they don’t pass, they try somewhere else. Russian military doctrine is like that.”

In foreign policy, Moscow calls it “constructive opportunism”. Could Putin’s soldiers aim to occupy Odessa, putting Europe in check?

“Everything is possible, if a breakthrough of the front occurs. Odessa is far away and there would be many territories to conquer. But faced with a possible Ukrainian rout on the eastern front, the Russians could move their troops wherever they want and reach every place. Including Odessa”.

Has Russian aggression increased? Is it being played in advance, before the new American military aid for Kyiv arrives?

“They can’t be more aggressive than that. They’re using all their war potential. Maybe they’re even preparing something else that we don’t know about. But with what they have right now on the front line they’re as aggressive as they can possibly be. And it’s going well for him. Especially because of the lack of artillery on the Ukrainian side. You can fight an infantry battle in groups of twenty or thirty soldiers against thousands of enemies, if you don’t have decisive fire support.”

The 61 billion aid package launched by the United States should immediately guarantee 12 billion in weapons to Kyiv. The rest, perhaps, later. Will the weapons arriving immediately be enough?

“Anyone who thinks that 12 billion worth of weapons and ammunition could really arrive in the space of a week is deluded and knows nothing about military logistics. There simply aren’t enough transport planes in the entire world to make such a supply possible. they wouldn’t even be half enough. The Americans are very good at logistics. But the only way they have to get aid to the Ukrainian front is to empty their warehouses in Poland and organize an airlift with Ukraine. the most urgent thing is the ammunition. There is a lot of ammunition and it costs a lot. I would be surprised if we see even a minimal effect of the new US aid before the next three weeks.”

Is the new American aid still a game changer? Can they change the fate of the war?

“If anything, I am a game holder. The game will remain what we already see.”

Why?

“Because the new aid does not sufficiently include weapon systems that the soldiers (“boys”, ed) can immediately use to cause damage to the enemy. Let us remember that the problem of the Ukrainian forces is the lack of personnel compared to the Russian forces. The only alternative is artillery. Lots of artillery with lots of ammunition. And not even this, if artillery and ammunition actually arrived soon, would be enough. The boys at the front are very tired and need all the basic infantry tools lost day after day during the battles. I’m talking about night vision goggles, binoculars, various equipment. Everything that is lost or worn out in combat. They haven’t had any real supplies for eight or ten months.”

Are you saying that Ukrainian soldiers need more trivial equipment than Atacms missiles?

“On the front line you need basic things. Ammunition, grenade launchers, hand grenades. More than Atacams, of course.”

But short-range tactical missiles can hit enemy reserves and slow down the Russians’ ability to act. How can you say they are not useful?

“The Atacms are very useful and can destroy anything. But they won’t make the infantry more efficient in any way. Everyone talks about strategic weapons like F-16 fighter planes, Atacms missiles and Himars rocket launchers. But online you need basic equipment and trained men. Numbers matter more than technology. What effect can an Atacms have on a front of hundreds of kilometers on which 80 thousand men are deployed?”.

Wouldn’t that stop the Russians?

“The Russians, better equipped and supplied, would continue to advance. Also because their commanders don’t mind suffering losses. They don’t care if soldiers die. This has always been the Russian tactic. Instead, the Ukrainians cannot afford further heavy losses. they have already had too many losses, also due to poor military decisions and poor leadership.”

Is Ukraine effective in managing Western military aid?

“They’re very good at making things work. Excellent engineers. But it doesn’t do much good if you don’t have spare parts. And it’s not always possible to build them yourself. Especially if they’re sophisticated weapons, you end up depending on the manufacturer for supplies who arrive late. When they arrive. Furthermore, the Ukrainian armed forces lack in combat maintenance system“.

That is to say?

“We can call it ‘early maintenance’: they can’t plan maintenance well and therefore have to ship to Poland, Germany or Lithuania for repairs. It takes time. And this reduces availability on the armament front.”

And corruption? Is there still a problem in the management of military aid?

“It is certainly a problem. Kyiv tries to fight it. Paradoxically, sometimes it is difficult to remove suspects because you don’t know who to put in their place. There is a fear of losing the time needed for a replacement to master the work and procedures. It is still a problem much less than the corruption that afflicts the Russian side in this war.”

What is the biggest problem in political institutions in Ukraine?

“The Parliament is highly dysfunctional. It may also be because there are many pro-Kremlin parliamentarians, but it is extremely cumbersome and slow in its legislative processes. Some corrupt politicians have been kicked out. But others remain and don’t care about the suspicions against them. The fact is that laws are blocked for nothing. It’s a problem for a country at war.”

How would you describe the current mood of Ukrainians?

“They are saddened by the slow response of the West and America to their calls for help. In the process, they become more cynical. They feel quite isolated. And they are tired. Like a marathon runner at 20 kilometers, when you start to get beyond fatigue War weariness is everywhere.”

Kremlin propagandists are once again raising the specter of nuclear power. “We will use nuclear weapons if NATO troops intervene in Ukraine,” the head of the largest state publishing group, Dmitry Kiselyov, said on TV. Would they really do it?

“It’s just propaganda. The Kremlin is afraid of such a scenario and tries to scare the world. But they would never do that. They don’t even have the capabilities to do it. Using tactical nuclear weapons on the ground would mean taking out the troops too Now that they’re winning, I really don’t think it even crosses their minds.”

But deploying NATO troops would still be extremely dangerous…

“Instead, I believe that the West would do well to threaten direct intervention. To make it clear that it is a concrete possibility. Deploying NATO military personnel in front of Kyiv and Odessa, for example, would make a lot of sense. As a cordon sanitaire, not for fighting. Western soldiers would certainly be bombed by the Russians. To defend themselves from this, Moscow could really decide to stop.