The Battle of Kyiv
The Battle of Kyiv will likely Determine the Outcome of the War
Setting the Scene
When Russia first invaded Ukraine, it was a forgone conclusion that the demise of the Ukrainian government and military was a matter of when not if. After all, Russia is considered the world’s second most powerful military and would be waging war across their own border.
To the surprise of everybody, including Russia, that is not what happened. I make no predictions as far as how this war will turn out or who is currently “winning”, but I think we need to acknowledge some of the difficulties the Russians have faced.
What we know so far:
Russia’s version of “shock and awe” did not manage to quickly end the war
Russia has been unable to achieve air superiority
They have captured no major cities (Only Kherson has been captured)
Advances have stalled
Conscripts are part of their army
There have been significant logistical problems
Things we have lots of anecdotal evidence/reports for:
Low morale among Russian soldiers
Significant Russians KIA (7-10K so far)
Communication problems
Russia is seeking more support - Troops from Syria, Supplies from China, Moving troops from other areas (ex: Ossetia)
Unreliable/outdated equipment
Having said all this, many of these problems can be rectified and Russia still has the larger military and resources. They also have the support of China which can be a huge factor, depending on how much help Beijing is willing to offer.
But understanding the current state of the war is significant because it affects how the two sides negotiate. Putin is in a tough situation because he cannot appear to come away empty-handed. On the other hand, the Ukrainians feel they are in a much better situation now than three weeks ago and are going to be less likely to make concessions if they feel that they can hold Russia to a stalemate.
Some of you may think that giving up some land is a small price to pay for peace, but the territories of Crimea and East Ukraine are a significant chunk of the country. Man has been fighting over land for all of history and civilian deaths do not usually persuade leaders to sue for peace if they are not forced to do so militarily.
So it’s not going to be an easy negotiation.
What Could Peace Look Like
I’ve heard people say that the West is pushing Ukraine to keep fighting instead of negotiating for peace because it will weaken Russia. I think that’s nonsense and if anything, the West would prefer that Ukraine make some concession so that Putin has an offramp to de-escalate and the world can start being a little more normal.
Objectively speaking, the outcome could look something like this:
Those areas are comprised mostly of Russian speakers and given the current state of ethnic tension it might be difficult to reintegrate those areas back into Ukraine.
Having said that, it is rather obnoxious of me to make these types of calculations given that it is not my country or my land. Also, it’s very difficult to understand the myriad complexities (ethnic, cultural, historical, etc) in a situation like this that it’s hard for us to really understand and judge how Ukrainians think about these issues.
National sovereignty is among the most powerful motivators in war and many people will fight to the death for this cause.
Ukrainians will ultimately decide what peace will look like.
The Importance of Kyiv
Time is simply not on the side of Russia:
Severe economic sanctions get more painful with each passing day
More time for Ukrainians to fortify their cities and arm their people
As Russian death tolls start to mount, this will generate significant social pressure inside the country
In the current context, the capture of Kyiv is imperative for Russia because:
It would force the government to flee, at which point Russia can install a new puppet government
It would significantly impact the morale of both Ukrainians and Russians
Kyiv’s location in the middle of the country would provide a major base of operations for military action in the rest of the country
It could force Ukraine to make the concessions necessary to end the war
Simply put, Kyiv is by far the top military objective and in the current military stalemate, it becomes even more important.
The Battle of Kyiv
Given the significance of the outcome of this battle, I was curious to learn more about urban warfare and what the Battle of Kyiv would look like.
The Battle of Kyiv has hardly begun. So far Russia has not managed to encircle the city and they are still fighting mostly in the suburbs. In the west, the Russians are digging trenches and preparing defensive positions. Most of the attacks from the Russians have been from the West and North West.
This is a map of the current fronts around Kyiv.
Urban warfare is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged during World War 2. Two important examples are the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Berlin, and the Battle of Manila.
More recently you’ve heard about the first and second battles for Grozny in Chechnya.
These battles are notorious for how brutal and deadly they were, and there is good reason for that. Urban combat is the hardest and most dangerous type of military operation to conduct. And ultimately, even with all our technological advancements, it still comes down to methodical door-to-door fighting.
This article gives a somber first-hand account of what it was like for a Russian infantry fighting vehicle to enter Grozny during the First Chechen War.
Mychko told me during our meeting that no one mentioned any combat mission to them in Grozny: "Only an order on the radio: to enter the city. Kazakov was sitting at the levers, Mikhaylov was in the aft, next to the radio. He maintained the signal. Well, then it was me and Belov."
They entered Grozny at noon on December 31: "We really didn’t understand anything, didn’t even manage to fire a single shot -- not from a cannon, not from a machine gun, or from rifles. It was hell. We didn’t see anything or anybody. Our vehicle was shaking from hits. Everything fired from everywhere and we had no other thought than to get out of here! The radio was brought down by the first hits. We were just a...target.
"We didn't even try to shoot back and we didn’t even know where to shoot because we didn’t see the enemy. Everything was like in a nightmare. Even now it seems that it lasted for ages, although it was just a few minutes. We were hit, the car was on fire. Belov rushed into the upper hatch and blood poured on me right away. He was cut down by a bullet or debris, and he hung on the tower. Then I myself rushed to get out of the vehicle."
BTW, if you opened the articles you’ll notice that the pictures you see are eerily reminiscent of what we are seeing out of Ukraine today.
Anyways, I first looked at the Army’s manual for Urban Combat which you can access by clicking below:
It’s a bit long and talks more about tactics, rather than strategy.
I also stumbled across this fantastic podcast by Colonel John Spencer Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, West Point: What Will the Battle of Kyiv Look Like?
Lots of great info on Urban Warfare which I will touch upon below and he does a great job of breaking it down for non-experts to understand.
So, here we go: The Battle of Kyiv
The first thing to consider is the standard playbook for modern sieges of cities. I’ve seen lots of people criticize Russia for encircling cities and then bombing them. That’s standard practice. The US also does this, but their rules of engagement are quite different. Ultimately you get far fewer civilian deaths with the US, but the overall destruction of the city itself is not that different from what Russia does.
But this is the price to be paid for mounting an urban defense. Those Ukrainian troops could choose to engage their Russian counterparts in the fields outside of Kyiv. This would save a lot of lives…but it would also mean that they would lose.
Instead, they prefer an urban battle. Why? Because it’s a nightmare for Russian troops.
Phase 1: Soften Up the Target
So what is Russia going to do in the initial preparatory phase?
Bomb every single military target it can identify in Kyiv. Note: Ukraine’s military forces are hiding all over the city and they are not going to make themselves easy targets. This doesn’t mean they’re hiding in civilian buildings, but they’re hiding in a city full of civilians
Try to isolate Kyiv: Try to separate the city from supplies and reinforcements. So far Russia has not succeeded in doing this, but if they bring in more forces they will try to do so
They will bomb the city some more to soften it up
So here I want to discuss this concept of bombing a civilian city. If you are going to fight in a city this is more or less inevitable. It is impossible that defenders don’t take up positions that are somewhat close to civilians.
The truth is that civilians should be nowhere near urban combat. Once urban combat begins, those civilians need to be evacuated ASAP.
The rules of modern urban combat require that armies take certain precautions to limit civilian casualties in these situations. Russia is far less concerned with these rules and so urban combat on their terms is far more indiscriminate and deadly for civilians.
Three things about this phase to mention:
Russia will try to encircle Kyiv, but even with more forces, this is not entirely possible. Supplies will still get through. The idea that you can starve out the city is not a realistic scenario here.
Kyiv has a lot of underground tunnels. Old catacombs, water tunnels, subways…etc. This is how Ukrainians survive Phase 1. In truth, bombing the city will not actually kill all that many Ukrainian fighters (think Iwo Jima).
Once Russia commits to a full offensive on Kyiv, the city is likely to be largely destroyed. Look at Mariupol as an example of what urban warfare means.
Finally, keep in mind that bombing can be counter-productive because:
You make movement within the city more complicated with debris
You create an unlimited number of hiding places for the defenders
Phase 2: Combat
Now let’s dive into the issue of combat. This is the part where Russia moves in and tries to take the city. This part is absolutely brutal for Russian soldiers. Think back on the account I shared earlier about Russian troops trying to enter Grozny.
Some Basics of Urban Combat
Urban warfare is called the “Great Equalizer” because it nullifies the technical and numerical superiority of attacking force.
Fighting in an urban environment is not something that you can easily prepare for. You have all kinds of battle zones, high and low, which are largely unknown to the attacker, and used to the advantage of the defender.
US military doctrine says you need between 3-1 to 5-1 force ratios to be able to successfully wage urban warfare. French doctrine recommends 10-1.
Urban combat is very demanding and requires 4 times more ammo than normal fighting. Given the current logistic difficulties on the Russian side, this is a problem.
When fighting in urban combat, you sacrifice your ability to strike your enemy from a distance. This is the technological advantage that modern armies have. You can find and attack your enemies at a distance without risking soldiers’ lives.
Urban enemies have learned to complicate this by first hiding, and then “hugging” attacking forces when they come in, thereby making the greater firepower of the attacker useless.
Modern military doctrine is based on the concept of “Combined Arms Maneuvers”. This means a coordinated attack involving multiple forces (Infantry, Armor, Air, Artillery) that move and fire. The two keys are movement and fire. As we’ll see, this is made very difficult in urban combat.
The more time that passes, the more time Ukrainians have to prepare. This means they are going to:
Set up obstacles → this slows movement and ideally funnel Russian forces into…
Ambush points set up by Ukrainian defenders
Set up caches of weapons and supplies throughout the city
Create quick travel routes allowing them mobility to strike and retreat, as well as being able to quickly reinforce strong advances
The lack of air superiority for the Russians is also important here. Hand-held Stingers essentially eliminate the possibility of helicopters maneuvering troops.
Urban Combat
Urban combat needs tanks. Infantry can not advance into cities without the support of tanks and other armor.
If it is the job of the infantry to go and fight door to door, it is the job of the armor to get them to those locations safely. Without armor, the infantry is dead in the water, vulnerable to ambushes and snipers.
The problem for the Russians is all the handheld anti-tank hardware that is being funneled into Ukraine.
Remember that the urban terrain makes it very easy for defenders to hide. The attackers must venture into the city until they start getting hit. Then they can react.
When the defenders have Javelins and NLaws, that makes it harder for the attacker to survive the initial attack.
Tanks also have this horrible problem of how high or low they can aim their cannon!
And remember when I said that the strength of modern armies is the ability to fire and maneuver. Well, defenders can make is so that maneuvering is impossible in urban combat: here I want to re-emphasize how the obstacles created by the defenders contribute to halting the ability of the attacker to maneuver.
The combination of stingers, anti-tank weapons, mines, obstacles, snipers, and an unforgiving bombed infrastructure make urban combat a nightmare for attackers.
Also, the defender has the advantage of deciding where to engage. And they will only do so where the terrain favors them.
Ultimately, these are the types of diagrams that are most important in urban combat:
You need professional, well-trained, and motivated soldiers to mount these types of operations. Not sure if this applies to current Russian forces.
And so we are probably going to see the bombing phase keep going and going.
Final Thoughts
A Battle of Kyiv will likely see the large-scale destruction of the city. This is largely inevitable based on modern urban combat doctrine. Civilian casualties on the other hand will be much larger with a Russian attacker.
If you’re wondering why the Russian offensive has stopped, it’s because it’s really difficult to attack and capture cities. It’s even that much harder to capture large cities.
The Russians know the price they will pay when they start trying to take these cities. Given the problems they’ve already encountered outside of urban combat, they are not that eager to make full-scale incursions into cities.
Kyiv is the exception because of its strategic importance which makes it the most likely target for a large-scale urban siege.
That being said, it’s also their biggest nightmare because of its physical size meaning it can’t be completely cut off from supplies/reinforcements.
The Battle of Kyiv will likely determine the outcome of this conflict.
US bombed Belgrade for 78 days. To suggest that Russia is not winning this war fast enough is nitpicking and asking for more civilian casualties. Russia could do more damage and win faster but at some cost. To keep China and much of the open-minded world on its side, Russia needs to be thoughtful. I understand not liking Russia, but first we should clean our own house.