The bloodletting in Ukraine continues with no end in sight. The risks of continued casualties, now numbering likely in the hundreds of thousands, along with the attendant escalation spiral, must be firmly rejected by responsible leaders.
Embracing a “Korean Scenario” may provide the best prospect for both the Ukrainian people and a return to global stability. It would allow both sides to stop fighting with an immediate armistice along the present line of contact, while putting aside most of the complexities of peacemaking.
In autumn, the armed forces of Ukraine (AFU) illustrated that they are capable of large-scale offensive action. However, the Russian Army has not buckled as some had predicted, but has rather returned to the offensive, creeping forward along nearly the whole front.
It remains to be seen whether the Russian capture of towns surrounding Bakhmut, like Soledar and Klishchiivka, indicates the main effort of Russia’s winter offensive.
The use of mostly Wagner Group troops in these battles around Bakhmut may imply that these are merely holding actions, meant to keep the AFU engaged, while larger Russian offensive actions are to be taken on the flanks. Of course, there have been more than a few hints that another Russian offensive could come through Belarus. Another possible vector of Russian attack could be from the south along the Dnepr river and toward Zaporizhzhia.
Yet, it is entirely possible that the Kremlin, humbled by a year of military setbacks, has opted for the more conservative and realistic near-term goal of gradually and methodically securing only the Donbas. To be sure, a major humiliation for the Russian Army has been its inability to dislodge Ukrainian forces from their positions near the main city of Donetsk.
The raging debates in the Western press about tanks being transferred to Ukraine, including the kerfuffle in U.S.-German relations, are likely more important on a symbolic, political level than as a so-called “game-changing” transformation in the Western effort to improve the AFU. It could be many months before American tanks show up in the country, not least due to the intense training that will be required.
There are many reasons for skepticism regarding the transfer of tanks to Ukraine, including the German-made Leopard tanks that could apparently arrive as soon as March, as a means to significantly alter the situation on the battlefield. Many seem to have forgotten that only a year ago the strategic studies community was pondering whether tanks had a real future in any army — given the pervasive and effective employment of drones and shoulder-fired missiles on both sides.
There is actually substantial evidence that the Leopard 2 has not performed well in real combat conditions in Syria, and there is no doubt that Russian strategists have studied this case thoroughly to understand that tank’s various weaknesses.
As one Russian strategist explains, “Some compare sending the Leopard to Ukraine with the appearance of the Tiger ... in 1942-45. The Germans tried to shoot Soviet T-34s from long distances. It’s a beautiful story of ...Teutonic engineering genius, if not for one thing - the presence of Russian anti-tank systems of various calibers.”
Indeed, the Leopard might outperform Russian tanks in many parameters. Yet, tank-versus-tank duels have been rare, and tanks must fight against an integrated combat system. Russian sources claim they are well-stocked with the necessary anti-tank weapons and that many Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles have already been destroyed.
Meanwhile, Russian artillery fire has not slackened and has become more accurate due to spotting by drones. Kamikaze drones, such as the Russian Lancet, have proved highly effective in this role, and Russian attack helicopters and fixed wing aircraft continue to be active along the front. Moreover, such obvious Russian anti-tank capabilities are being upgraded. Other questions with respect to NATO tanks include their comparative heavy weight, not necessarily an advantage in the spring Ukrainian mud, but especially the complex maintenance and also the considerable fuel challenges they pose.
Western armor in Ukrainian hands quite likely will resemble the evolving role of tanks on the other side of the line as roving artillery rather than the shock formations of the famous Nazi blitzkrieg. However, the latter style of warfare cannot be ruled out entirely given the enormous support Kyiv is getting and also the evident prowess of the Ukrainian military in combat. As I have suggested elsewhere, the AFU successfully employed light armor with innovative and bold tactics during the fall Kharkiv area offensive.
Still, there is the possibility, however remote, that NATO tanks may yet provide a “game-changing” element, administering a decisive defeat against Russian armies. Their efforts would be substantially aided if Ukraine truly had an air force overhead to cover these armored thrusts. As noted recently by Anatol Lieven in these pages, it was only moments after the dam broke on the provision of main battle tanks that negotiations had already begun on a transfer of fighter jets.
Peering into the future when the AFU may wield both substantial forces of tanks and aircraft, it is worth pondering whether these could form ideal targets for Russian tactical nuclear strikes against Ukraine. Indeed, such weapons might not be especially effective against scattered infantry formations distributed over a lengthy front, but concentrations of high-tech weapons at air bases or tank parks could quite significantly increase the temptation for Russian commanders desperate for their own “wonder weapons.”
It should be remembered that only a few months ago President Joe Biden warned that the world was closer to Armageddon than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. When President Vladimir Putin commented in late October that “We see no need for that,” it was positive, to be sure, but also left the door unfortunately quite wide open for a scenario in which he felt the need in the future.
It was reported on January 16 that Russian Duma deputy and former deputy commander of Russia’s southern military district Andrey Gurulyov warned that, “in response to the use of heavy German tanks by Ukraine, the Russian army should launch a nuclear strike...," he argued. "Should we use nuclear weapons in this case? Why should we be embarrassed?... Who's stopping [us] from doing it?"
“The appearance of German tanks on Russian territory is [unacceptable]," he went on. As soon as the Leopard comes here, … there is no other option.” Since Gen. Gurulyov is a military expert and once even commanded a tank army, his opinion on how Russia should respond to NATO tanks is not easily dismissed.
A few other nuclear warnings were evident in the Russian military press within days. But a deeper look reveals that such signals have been widespread since the summer. Why these continuing warnings of possible escalation to the nuclear level go unreported in the Western mainstream press remains unclear but are nonetheless extremely concerning to say the least.
Seventy years ago, a similarly pointless and unnecessary bloodbath engulfed the Korean Peninsula. Men died in the tens of thousands in trenches that resembled the Western Front. Heavy bombers and other high-tech weapons were brought in, but the front lines did not move much in the war's last couple of years. Nuclear threats were made — more than once. The war dragged on in part due to the necessity of convincing the Communist world that aggression does not pay. The West back then also wanted a “rules-based order,” but the world proved far too messy for that strict concept – as it does today as well.
Dwight Eisenhower ran for the presidency in the fall of 1952, demanding that the Korean War be brought to an end. As a man thoroughly acquainted with the carnage and suffering of war, he fundamentally understood the imperative to end the conflict once and for all.
In crisis after crisis of the volatile early Cold War, from Dien Bien Phu to Budapest to Quemoy to Berlin, Eisenhower stood strongly on the side of peace and compromise. He was no ideologue, but rather a peace-oriented pragmatist. Fortunately for the world, many subsequent U.S. presidents followed his admirable example of realism and restraint, at least to some extent.
It is quite likely that the war in Ukraine will end in a similar fashion to the Korean War. With the approach of the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice in July 2023, that important moment could give President Biden an extraordinary opportunity to play peacemaker. In fact, Russian strategists have already put aside their extremist original war aims and are now actively discussing the “Korean Scenario” for Ukraine.
One such discussion earlier this month noted that the Korean War was more bloody than the current Ukraine War, but, “even with this in mind, the war still managed to be stopped — with the mediation of the UN.”
True, a Korean War-style armistice would put many hard issues aside concerning, for example, reparations, as well as trade and travel arrangements impacting many people in both countries. However, the strong virtue of this arrangement is that it puts a premium on an immediate halt to the fighting, while solidifying the line of contact as the new border for the foreseeable future. Another virtue of this approach, as with the well-guarded 38th Parallel on the Korean Peninsula, is that it would incorporate a neutral zone, from which military forces from both sides would have to be withdrawn over a period of months.
Would the leaders of Russia and Ukraine come to the table for such a Korean-style armistice? Putin, as the leader bearing the greatest responsibility for this tragedy, surely realizes that his whole legacy is in grave jeopardy, so that he must end the unpopular war as soon as possible.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected originally to seek peace with Russia, knows that his country has been bled white in this struggle and it is well past time to turn to the arduous task of rebuilding. As there has been most likely hundreds of thousands of casualties in the present conflict, humanitarians across the whole world must hope courageous leaders will step forward to mediate and encourage Putin and Zelensky to consider a “Korea solution.”
