Economic war to energy war: Ukraine War reflects new dimensions of warfare 

Backdrop

The war in Ukraine started as conventional war under nuclear hangover. It soon turned into hybrid war with non-state actors, triggered sanctions against Russia as part of economic war and transformed into energy war with Russia trying to starve the opponents of as much energy as possible, and the West trying to minimize Russian financial gains by capping the price and coercion of non-compliant states, albeit with a divided house. While the kinetic, contact, hybrid war continues between Russia and Ukraine, the US led NATO too continue fighting a non-kinetic, non-contact war in economic, information, diplomatic and political domains, simultaneously against Russia.

Watch | Russia Ukraine War: Kyiv hosts 'Grain Summit', Lithuania says 'Moscow using grain as weapon'

Despite Interenational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and WHO raising alarm over nuclear radiation and health crisis in Ukraine, opposing sides continue aggressive stance as they make excuses for not talking to each other. With crisis caused by missile landing in Poland being watered down by NATO to avoid exposing its cracks, West is trying its best to hide differences on price cap of Russian energy. With Russian pullback from Kherson followed by consistent targeting of energy and critical infrastructure in Ukraine, the changing dimensions of War in Ukraine is becoming new normal.

Existing reality

Russia-Ukraine War seems to be poised for dangerous escalation with multi-domain threats ranging from nuclear assertions/allegations, satellite references, energy grid targeting, cyber-attacks ever since drone attacks on Crimea and Black Sea Fleet, sabotage of both Nord Stream pipelines, bridge to Crimea. This has given it a renewed push after nine months. General Mark A Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of USA, has spoken out about the reality of the military situation in Ukraine, urging diplomacy and talks, which calls for serious consideration from American decision-makers, its NATO followers, and Zelensky.

The assertion by Ukraine that its counteroffensives are going well, assuming unending financial and military support from US led NATO, gives them reason to believe that continuing the fight to reclaim all lost territory is doable and preferable instead of negotiating with Russians.

This is a risky proposition.

Russia, too, finds it worthwhile to redeploy, consolidate, and retain its gains made so far, until the winters start biting the opposing parties beyond tolerance. The dimensions of the war are expanding to include targeting dual use critical infrastructure, energy grid, clandestine operations, enhanced information war, psychological offensive and use of mercenaries with no clarity of the end state which either side wants to achieve to terminate the war. Both sides seem to be going crazy with one bombarding Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and other deploying its arsenal there and both raising alarm to helpless IAEA.

Russian Intention and Strategy

Post hasty referendum in four regions to join Russia, it has suffered a series of setbacks in military operations in Kharkiv and Kherson. With heavy casualties to men and material and miscalculations about NATO’s resolve to support Ukraine, Russians seem to have modified their strategy and are responding by creating energy crisis. Russia is yet to achieve its strategic aim of liberating Donbass and remaining southern Ukraine to join up with Transnistria to landlock Ukraine.

Russians realised that they have opened wide frontages beyond sustainable limits with depleting combat resources; hence trading ground for viable defence line is a sensible military strategy. Their logic of pull back from Kherson follows this strategy as it was impractical to hold such large built-up area with shortage of infantry suffering more casualties from insurgent attacks by Ukrainians.

It made better sense to pull back to the eastern bank of Dnieper and hold stronger defensive line. From Russian perspective, Ukraine's energy grid and essential services are just as much a target for dual use (civil and military) as the Russian bridge to Crimea. Hence, attacking it will have a greater impact on undermining Ukrainian resolve to fight. Although Russians as well as Ukrainians are used to fighting in winters, greater availability of energy with Russians can put them in advantageous position.

Russia is cognizant of its limitations in the domains of economic, diplomatic, information warfare, and political warfare, heavily weighted in favour of US led NATO and Ukraine and the fact that it is unlikely to receive significant outside military material support. The mild nuclear reference by Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, if Russian “territorial integrity” is threatened will continue to prevent NATO entering into contact war with Russia in future too.

US-led NATO: Intention and Strategy

The overstated successes of the Ukrainian counteroffensives and its own gains in the non-kinetic, non-contact war against Russia in the economic, information, diplomatic, and political spheres may encourage NATO, but the realistic military assessment suggests that even if billions of dollars are invested in Ukraine, evicting Russia from entire territory of Ukraine as per Zelensky’s stance is not possible.

From US point of view, it has achieved many of its objectives. Nord Stream 1 and 2 are non-functional, Russia's influence over the EU is decreasing. EU is compelled to keep purchasing its expensive oil and military equipment. Russia is now less powerful, and US dominance over the EU is no longer at risk. As a result, it is recommending that Zelensky take call, to avoid responsibility of Ukraine’s submission with its territory in Russian hands. The US is also looking to secure earnings from contracts to rebuild Ukraine.

The US is supporting proxy or shadow wars motivated to win without fighting!! However, emergence of alternative global/localized financial systems, can undermining its control over the current global financial system in the long run. Hence it can't claim to be outright winner. The Russia-Iran-North Korea axis will also be a concern for US.

The war is not making Europe more peaceful, with millions of refugees mixed with activated mercenaries and a longer border with aggressive Russia.

The EU will have to raise its defence budget, give up its economic and energy interests and surrender some sovereign decisions to the US, to seek security shelter from it, to counter unfriendly Russia in the long run. However, Ukraine and the EU need to ask themselves: Will the US ever risk New York and Washington in order to save Kiev or Poland?

Difficult Choices for Ukraine!

The cumulative aid over $90 billion poured into Ukraine, and the rhetoric of Ukraine winning is giving an unrealistic hope to Zelensky that he need not talk to Putin and all taxpayers in US and Europe will continue to deliver whatever he asks.

It needs to be noted that Ukraine has lost 15% of its original land area in this war, displaced more than 6 million people internally, sent nearly 8 million refugees outside, suffered significant casualties and destroyed half of its energy infrastructure. Regaining lost territory from the Russians, who are seen to be digging in for a protracted war during winters and beyond, will be very tough, but currently it is struggling to find an answer to energy offensive.

Way Ahead

In the Big powers’ contestation in Ukraine, the world wants the war to end, as it is making everyone more susceptible to inflationary pressures and causing an unprecedented energy and food catastrophe. The negotiations seem difficult because Russia has not yet achieved its strategic objectives. On the other side, the political hierarchy of US led NATO finds ongoing proxy war, without sharing any burden of body bags, as a convenient option.

Russian actions are encouraging NATO to accept the bid of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, as they have strong militaries, to secure its northern flank in the long run. Russia, therefore might end up with extension of direct land border with NATO by over 1000 Km with Finland joining it as the final end state, an outcome which it wanted to avoid.

In current phase of offensive, the economic coercion by West has led to energy coercion by Russia. Pentagon seems to be coming to terms with reality but US proxy Zelensky, finds it difficult to swallow it, as he has lately asked for public format negotiations. After Poland episode, will US led NATO see some sense in moderating him to get to talking table remains to be seen?

WATCH WION LIVE HERE