In Russia’s Ukraine Plans, How Much Does the Mud Matter?

Russian tanks T-72B3 take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, Jan. 12, 2022. (AP)
Russian tanks T-72B3 take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, Jan. 12, 2022. (AP)
TT

In Russia’s Ukraine Plans, How Much Does the Mud Matter?

Russian tanks T-72B3 take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, Jan. 12, 2022. (AP)
Russian tanks T-72B3 take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, Jan. 12, 2022. (AP)

The Russian expression “tanks don’t fear mud” is common enough that it’s been the title of a short-lived Russian television series and can be found stenciled on car windows.

And it’s yet another reason why any Russian decision to invade Ukraine is likely to depend very little upon fears that a spring thaw will hinder tanks from crossing boggy ground. Russia’s military has, in addition to tanks and other armored vehicles that are well equipped for mud, a range of fighter jets and missiles that are the hallmarks of any modern military.

US President Joe Biden has said that Russia is essentially in position for an invasion of Ukraine “assuming that the ground is frozen above Kyiv,” the Ukrainian capital that is only 75 kilometers (47 miles) from the border of Belarus, a key Russian ally. It’s not the first time an American official has invoked Russia’s need for frozen ground to stage an invasion.

But analysts trying to figure out how Russia could invade say any assault would start with air and missile strikes, likely targeting Ukrainian military sites.

“If (Russian President Vladimir) Putin agrees to an invasion, then it won’t be tanks or ships in the vanguard, but rather aircraft and missile forces. The first targets for them will be air defense systems and the missile defense force, command posts, critical infrastructure, after which the advantage of Russian forces in the air and upper hand on land and sea are guaranteed,” said Mykola Sunhurovskyi, a military analyst at the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center think tank.

Some Ukrainian analysts have acknowledged that the country’s air defenses are insufficient in case of a massive Russian assault. Kyiv has prodded its Western allies to provide the country with modern air defense systems in addition to ground combat weapons provided by the US, Britain and others.

Sunhorovskyi said "the only deterrent is the West’s position and the readiness of millions of Ukrainians to fight to the end."

The Kremlin, which has denied having any Ukraine invasion plans, has scoffed at an argument that it wants to see the ground frozen to launch an attack on Ukraine. Ukrainian officials agree that frozen ground or mud isn’t an issue.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed at the argument to taunt British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss following their icy talks in Moscow on Thursday.

“They say that Russia is waiting for the ground to freeze like a stone so that tanks could easily roll into Ukrainian territory,” Lavrov told reporters. “The ground was like that with our British colleagues, with numerous facts we cited bouncing off them.”

Konstantin Sivkov, a Russian military analyst, said even if there were a ground incursion, Russian battle tanks are significantly lighter than Western armored vehicles and don’t get bogged down.

“Our tanks are much better suited for advancing on muddy terrain, there is nothing to worry about,” Sivkov said in remarks carried by the FAN news outlet. “A thaw can only stop Western tanks.”



Lebanon War... Why is it Difficult for Netanyahu and Nasrallah to Back Down?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
TT

Lebanon War... Why is it Difficult for Netanyahu and Nasrallah to Back Down?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters

Informed sources in Beirut told Asharq Al-Awsat that any diplomatic efforts to stop the ongoing war between Israel and Lebanon would face the obstacle of the main parties to the conflict — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah — finding it difficult to back down.

Why is Netanyahu refusing to back down?

The sources noted that the war in Lebanon has achieved for Netanyahu what he could not accomplish in Gaza. They summarized it as follows:

- Netanyahu framed the war with a unifying message that has gained consensus across the Israeli political spectrum: the return of the northern residents who were displaced after Hezbollah launched cross-border attacks following the Oct. 7 attacks in Gaza. This means that the Israeli military operations enjoy broad political and public backing.

- Netanyahu began the war by striking Hezbollah’s communication networks, inflicting unprecedented losses on the group and sidelining around 1,500 of its members from the battlefield.

- He dealt a near-fatal blow to the leadership of the Radwan Forces, the elite military wing of Hezbollah, managing to eliminate prominent figures, some of whom were listed as US targets due to attacks that occurred in Beirut four decades ago.

- Netanyahu can claim that Hezbollah initiated the war and that Israel’s only demand is the return of northern residents and ensuring their safety.

- Thus, it seems difficult for Netanyahu to back down from the demand of returning the displaced, which practically means disengaging the Lebanese front from the Gaza front.

Why is Nasrallah refusing to back down?

The sources pointed to the following reasons:

- It is hard for Nasrallah to accept a setback in a war that he initiated.

- He also finds it difficult to accept disengagement after Hezbollah has suffered unprecedented losses, unlike anything it faced in its previous confrontations with Israel, including the 2006 war.

- Accepting a setback would signal that Iran is not willing to take concrete steps to confront Israel.

- If Hezbollah agrees to disengage from Gaza without a ceasefire there, many would view the cross-border attacks launched by the party in support of the Palestinian enclave as a reckless gamble.

- A setback for Hezbollah would demoralize the Axis of Resistance and have a ripple effect on Gaza itself.

- Agreeing to a ceasefire without securing even "limited gains" would reinforce the perception that Nasrallah launched a war that most Lebanese reject, and that Hezbollah bears responsibility for the resulting losses.