The Hilarious Journey of Santa: Christmas Fun Facts and NORAD‘s Watchful Eye

Day 1000 of Vladimir Putin’s 10 Day Special Military Operation

by Grey Hare Editor | Nov 19, 2024 | Articles

Day 1000 of Vladimir Putin’s 10 Day Special Military Operation

by Philip INGRAM MBE

Russia has the tactical initiative, but only just, at the operational level and strategically the conflict is in a stalemate position, but Ukraine is holding the initiative by its fingertips.  The 1000 days has cost almost 750,000 Russian casualties according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, and whilst there are no official figures, Ukraine has probably suffered in the region of 500,000 casualties.

This 10-day Special Military Operation Putin had planned, has backfired on him in so many ways. It is only his ability to adapt, international support from Iran, North Korea, China and the likes of India and Pakistan that are keeping him going alongside his tactical meatgrinder tactics. Human life is cheap to Putin, especially when it’s not Muscovites who are being sent for slaughter.

The doom merchants are calling it a Ukrainian failure and anticipating the new Trump Presidency bringing an end to the conflict by imposing a settlement, in order to “stop wasting US Taxpayers Dollars.”  This is discussed in more detail below, but the headline is that this would potentially stimulate a global conflict.

Biden has finally authorised the use of US long range missiles into Russian territory, and it is likely UK and French permission for Strom Shadow/SCALP will follow. This has happened now because of North Koreas direct involvement with troops on the front line, Russia failing to heed Trumps call for no escalation by attacking Ukrainian power infrastructure with hundreds of drones and missiles and possible pressure from Trumps team, so the decision was made by Biden leaving Trump more negotiating room. Putin’s response, predictable threats of escalation but no real action.

These missiles with impact Russia’s ability to concentrate capability withing 150+ miles of the Ukrainian border/frontline and this will have a significant effect on Russia’s ability to support its tactical operations.

Tactically Russia has regained part of the initiative in the East with a steady but slow and costly capture of further territory. Ukraine, with its ambitious excursion into the Russian Kursk province had regained that initiative, hoped it would draw troops away from the East, but that hasn’t happened and Russia’s relentless meatgrinder tactics have kept Ukrainian defences under constant pressure. The cost to Russia is now that Putin is relying on North Korean troops and recruiting in Africa to feed his meatgrinder. This is unsustainable.

However, this is far from a tactical war and conflicts are often won at the operational or strategic level, no matter how tactical battles go. We should remember the US won every tactical engagement in Vietnam but lost the conflict. The same with NATO and allied forces in Afghanistan.

If we look at what has happened to date from strategic and operational perspective:

Strategic Objective: Putin re-invaded Ukraine on 23^rd February 2022 to try and topple the Zelensky government, put a puppet regime in place and reduce the potential for NATO expansion.

Outcome: The Ukrainians pushed Russia from Kyiv, forced their withdrawal to the eastern part of Ukraine, re captures thousands of square kilometres of land, destroyed thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, armoured vehicles and hundreds of thousands of Russian service personnel, stopped Russia gaining Air Superiority and sunk almost a third of the Black Sea Fleet. NATO has expanded welcoming Finland with a land border with Russia and welcoming Sweden. The Wests Defence industrial base has been shocked into expanding production capability to meet war needs. Russia’s defence industrial base is suffering such that supplies from North Korea and Iran are essential to the Russian war effort.

Result: Russia has refocused its main effort to the East and set new success criteria as holding onto the land it has captured to date by forcing Western ‘Ukraine fatigue.’ This is enhanced by Western focus shift to the Middle East.

Strategic Objective: Dislocation of Western and wider global support for Ukraine, collapse of NATO, further division within the EU and greater US isolationism.

Outcome: NATO has come together politically and militarily better than it has been before. It has recognised many of its shortfalls and in particular relationship with its defence industrial bases. Not only is it growing but it is slowly regenerating a better conventional capability. However, the EU is becoming increasingly politically polarised, and elements of UK politics crave greater isolationism, and we are seeing a growth of right-wing politics. The UK has lost its influence and ability to bridge between EU and US politics. US support for Ukraine is being debated because of Trumps historical comments but $60 Bn of US money invested in the US Defence industrial base is a lot of jobs and is good for the US economy. It is highly unlikely that Trump will want to undo this industrial capacity and start to cut his defence industrial base back, so production will continue to increase.

Result: Putin sees political weakness as the way of increasing ‘Ukraine Fatigue’ and gaining his objective of a settlement at current boundaries. He will increase destabilising activities across Europe, (the German Government has all but collapsed), he will continue to aid further destabilisation in the Middle East and Africa in order to create further political dilemmas and refocus attention away from Ukraine.

Operational Objective: Putin’s Operational Objective is securing the territory he has gained, increasingly try and integrate captured regions including Crimea into Russia, influence Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea. He will try and do what he can to reinforce ‘Ukraine Fatigue’ as he sees this as his only path for a clear victory.

Outcome: Ukraine retains the operational initiative with Special Operations Executive (SOE) type operations happening across all of the occupied territories and into Russia itself. Trains are being derailed, factories catching fire, oil refineries being attacked by drones and of course huge success in sinking almost 1/3 of the Russian Black Sea fleet. In addition, Ukraine remains in the Kursk region of Russia, still holding Russian territory.

Result: Russia if having real difficulty defending against Ukrainian Operational level activities and until Ukrainian tactical supplies reach the levels needed to regain the tactical initiative, this is where the Ukrainian Armed Forces will continue to operate and have significant success. These operations are being headed by General Budanov who leads the GUR, Ukraine’s Military Intelligence. They are designed to and are having success in hollowing out Russia’s ability to sustain its tactical operations whilst influencing Russia strategic decision making.

Trump, Putin and Zelinsky

What is clear is President Trump will try and push Putin and Zelinsky to deliver peace plans, they are both making noises about negotiating, but that is probably to placate Trumps team. Zelinsky if he has sense, (which he has in bucket loads), will talk of concessions and compromises. Putin will talk of retaining what he has and push for more and is unlikely to give concessions. Should this happen, I can see the conditions for Trump to have to send Putin a very clear message via the Ukrainians. Trumps presidency may be very good for Ukraine.

From a wider strategic perspective, with three conflict flashpoints around the world in Europe, in the Middle East and in SE Asis with Taiwan at the focal point, Tump will want Europe to step up and take more of a lead in supporting Ukraine so the US can concentrate more on the Middle East and SE Asia. This is only fair and they is where we will see US diplomatic pressures being applied.

A forced Settlement

Matthew Bunn wrote in a paper for the Harvard Kennedy School titled, “Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future,” in March 2020. “On December 5, 1994, leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation met in Budapest, Hungary, to pledge security assurances to Ukraine in connection with its accession to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapons state. The signature of the so-called Budapest Memorandum concluded arduous negotiations that resulted in Ukraine’s agreement to relinquish the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, which the country inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union, and transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement. The signatories of the memorandum pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders, and to refrain from the use or threat of military force.”

We then get into the Minsk agreements named after the capital of Belarus and were signed there in 2014 and 2015. They were an attempt to secure a ceasefire between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the east of Ukraine. They set out a roadmap for elections in the occupied regions on Luhansk and Donetsk and a plan to reintegrate the territory back into the rest of Ukraine.  However, Russian President Vladimir Putin recognised the independence of the self-proclaimed republics in the run up to his re-invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Putin does not have a good history in keeping to international agreements he has signed, and the West has an equally poor record in holding Russia to those agreements. It is those two points that would set any peace negotiation with Russia where Ukrainian territory was ceded to Russia that may, in the short term, temporarily end a very bloody conflict but would likely lead to a global conflict within a few short years.  This must be considered when negotiating with Putin.

World War 3

What could the signing of a peace deal with Putin result in? The answer is simple, the impact is potentially catastrophic. Initially it would probably bring an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine but both sides would feel unfulfilled. Rebuilding could start but the impact of what has happened would be felt for generations. The Zelensky government would fail, and any successor would have eyes on rebuilding Ukraine but the potential for corruption to come back and grow bigger would be huge given the effort Putin would put into influencing any new government and the money involved. The west would likely rein back and any Ukrainian accession plan to the EU or move towards joining NATO would be delayed and delays would keep creeping in.

Putin would keep his defence industrial base on its current footing but would be able to capitalise on the relationships he has been developing with Iran, China and North Korea, alongside the lessons he will have learned from the battles in Ukraine, the Russians are very adaptable, and it is highly likely that they would capitalise on better Sino-Russian defence cooperation to capitalise on operational lessons learned, rebuild a more modern and capable Russian military whilst enhancing the Chinese PLA and increase influence, pushing to domination in the Middle East. The quid pro quo for China would be increased Russian support for Chinese dominance in SE Asia. We will see an emboldened of the Axis of Evil of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea growing stronger.

Tensions in the South China Seas have been growing for some time. In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favour of the Philippines and invalidated China’s claim in the strategic waters, Beijing refused to accept the ruling. Those disputed waters are in what China refers to as the nine-dash line, which overlaps the exclusive economic zones of rival claimants Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The nine-dash line, (also referred to as the eleven-dash line by Taiwan), is a set of line segments on various maps that accompanied competing claims of rights of control and include the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Island and the Vereker Banks, the Macclesfield Bank, and the Scarborough Shoal. Certain places have undergone land reclamation by the PRC, ROC, and Vietnam.

This is in addition to the growing tensions between China and Taiwan.  Taiwan has been governed independently of China since 1949, but Beijing views the island as part of its territory as part of its one China Principal and recognition of this through a one China Policy has been the bedrock of Sino-US relations. However, Beijing has vowed to eventually “unify” Taiwan with the mainland, using force if necessary and tensions have increased dramatically as US and other global leaders increasingly talk of Taiwan outside Chinas language of it one China Principal.

Tensions are rising. The Democratic Progressive Party, whose platform favours independence, won a third consecutive term in 2024, while Beijing has ramped up political and military pressure on Taipei.  Xi Jing Ping of China will be weighing up the potential impact of a reaction from the international community should he decide to take Taiwan by force. If he sees the West capitulate to Putin over Ukraine, he could easily decide that China, with its economic power, could ride out the impact of Western displeasure, especially if it saw an opportunity to further impact western economies and create opportunities for China, or a China, Russia or a China Russia Iranian Pact, possibly underpinned by the BRICS group of countries.  China is already stockpiling natural resources, food and other materials.

Bloomberg’s description of BRICS is, “The BRICS group of emerging-market nations — the acronym stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — has gone from a slogan dreamed up at an investment bank two decades ago to a real-world club that controls a multilateral lender. It doubled in size in 2024, pairing several major energy producers with some of the biggest consumers among developing countries and potentially enhancing the group’s economic clout in a US-dominated world.”

Of course, in the region we have tensions on the Korean Peninsula. It is widely reported and has been consistently reported for almost two years that rising tension on the Korean peninsula is eroding the safeguards set up by both countries against the risk of confrontation. There are regular incidents in the de-militarised zone and with North Korea’s sabre rattling. Increased cooperation with Russia will give the Kim Jong Un regime a boost economically and psychologically and will likely embolden Kim Jong Un which is never good for an unpredictable dictator with nuclear weapons. He could use any sign of weakness in the West as an opportunity.

SE Asian tensions don’t stop here. Russia and Japan have been at loggerheads since the end of the Second World War when the Soviet Union occupied four islands off the northeast coast of Hokkaido, Japan’s second-largest island, the Kuril Islands. Japan claimed that the Soviet Union incorporated them “without any legal grounds” and refused to sign a peace treaty. The Russians view the Kuril Islands as reward for the sacrifices of the Soviet people during the war.  Japan over recent years has changed its constitution from purely defensive to allow offensive operations to protect its territories and has been changing its military to include offensive capabilities.  Defences on the disputed Kuril Islands have been reduced to send military capability to Ukraine. Japan may decide the time has come to take them back.

Should tensions rise to conflict in SE Asia, that that conflict could easily be stimulated by the international community being seen to give in to Putin, then Putin would see any focus to that region by the international community as an opportunity to restart his ambitions to capture the whole of Ukraine and turn it into a Belarus like puppet state, as well as other surrounding states, no matter what peace deals had been signed. Of course, both China and Russia have their relationship with Iran to ensure Middle East tensions remain high. The potential for conflicts in the three separate regions is high and growing and the potential for them to join to a globally impactful conflict is growing also.

So, those who are calling for Ukraine to cede land to Putin in exchange for peace need to understand exactly what the implications are and how that could be a trigger for other conflicts to start.  To have any hope of deterring this we would need to be ready for a conflict on a scale that could be bigger than the Second World War and that means defence expenditure at levels countries haven’t begun to imagine yet.

The thousandth day is a landmark of horror underpinning the continuation of war in Europe. The potential for this to become a global conflict has never been clearer. However, Russia is hurting. Without manpower from North Korea and Africa, and ammunition and equipment from North Korea, Iran and some from China it would be in a much worse position than it is today.  The conflict will end in negotiation, but only when the circumstances are right, and this is some way off yet. The stakes are too high to force the positions when the circumstances are wrong. Conflicts are won or lost at the strategic and operational levels; sometimes tactical battles influence this but not always the way people think. Unfortunately, I think we will still be talking of this war in another 1000 days.