Since the Ukrainian military entered Russian territory on August 6, the Russian army has yet to demonstrate an effective ability to intercept, allowing the elite Ukrainian attacking forces to continue advancing. Moscow is now facing a dilemma of whether to prioritize maintaining the summer offensive or to retreat early and drive out the invading Ukrainian troops. The unexpected counteroffensive by Ukraine has also raised concerns in Beijing. In case of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, could the People’s Liberation Army handle simultaneous counterattacks by the US and allied forces from different locations?
The Ukrainian military’s counterattack against Russia has lasted for over 10 days, occupying more than 1,000 square kilometers of Russian territory. Despite the Russian army mobilizing forces from various regions, they have yet to launch a strong counterattack, mostly attempting to halt the Ukrainian military’s offensive.
Moscow is well aware that withdrawing a significant number of combat-ready troops from the Ukrainian front line could jeopardize their planned summer offensive. Moreover, the redeployed troops might not be able to swiftly defeat the Ukrainian forces. Forces from other military districts have limited combat capabilities and equipment and currently appear forced into a defensive stance in the face of the Ukrainian offensive, struggling to push back the Ukrainian troops to the border, leaving the Kremlin in a predicament.
The Russian-Ukrainian war has been ongoing for over two years. The Russian military is well aware of the tenacity of the Ukrainian forces in combat, with many of the aid-obtained weapons outperforming Russian counterparts. The notion of the Russian military easily overpowering their opponents is not practical, especially considering the well-equipped Ukrainian troops penetrating Russian borders. Some soldiers in the Ukrainian army have received training in NATO systems, boosting their morale. Repelling such opponents would prove to be quite challenging and costly for the Russian military.
Intelligence indicates that the Ukrainian military continues to reinforce near the Russian-Ukrainian border, deploying around 600 armored vehicles and possibly amassing up to 10,000 troops.
NATO has provided Ukraine with approximately 1,550 various types of armored vehicles, with some damaged in previous conflicts, and at least more than half have likely been utilized in the current counteroffensive operation.
NATO has also trained at least 34,000 new recruits for Ukraine, primarily focusing on trench warfare for most infantry and training armored troops to operate NATO equipment, emphasizing offensive operations. In this counterattack, Ukraine’s elite armored units have been effectively deployed.
Despite Ukraine’s claims of insufficient ammunition and delayed assistance, they have meticulously prepared, stored reserves, demonstrating the capability to launch such a large-scale counteroffensive operation.
If Ukraine has truly committed 10,000 troops to the counterattack and has incurred a loss of 3,160 soldiers, approximately one-third of its fighting strength, it may struggle to sustain the offensive. However, the reserves retained by Ukraine are likely dwindling. Ukraine has invested heavily, and its effectiveness remains to be seen.
The Ukrainian counterattack caught the Russian military off guard. Within days, they lost hundreds of square kilometers of territory, revealing the malfunctioning of the Russian military’s intelligence system and a lack of comprehensive strategic foresight. Their delayed response indicates a lack of strategic planning within the Russian Ministry of Defense.
In May, the Russian military chose to open a new front in the northern part of Ukraine, attacking the Kharkiv region to both deplete Ukrainian forces and prevent a Ukrainian counteroffensive into Russian territory. Moscow likely made a miscalculation, believing that Ukraine was exhausted on multiple defense lines and lacked sufficient forces and equipment for a counterattack, resulting in the ineffective defense at the Russian-Ukrainian border.
The Ukrainian counterattack in the Kursk region contrasts starkly with the battles in the Kharkiv region between both sides. Ukraine swiftly obtained intelligence about the Russian assault on Kharkiv, promptly deployed defenses, and resisted the Russian offensive. Conversely, despite the overall numerical disadvantage against the Ukrainian counteroffensive, the Russian forces seem to struggle to defend themselves.
The conflict in the Kursk region has persisted for over 10 days, with the Ukrainian forces maintaining an offensive posture while the Russian forces reallocate troops but primarily maintain a defensive stance, refraining from launching significant counterattacks. Ukraine continues to expand its occupied territories, leaving Moscow resorting to issuing false battle reports and restricting internal information dissemination to conceal the truth.
The reinforcement troops dispatched to the Kursk region by Russia likely lack heavy equipment. Upon arrival, they initially focus on digging numerous trenches beyond the contact line with the Ukrainian forces, rather than swiftly reclaiming the occupied territories.
Reportedly, some reserves from the eastern front of Ukraine have been shifted to the Kursk region, seemingly without affecting the ongoing frantic frontline assaults. Moscow realizes the intention of the Ukrainian counterattack is to distract the Russian military and disrupt their summer offensive plans, hence the Russian Ministry of Defense refrains from significant troop relocations from the frontlines.
The Russian military relies on reinforcements drawn from other military districts to bolster Kursk. Even if willing to recall combat-ready troops from the frontline, it would not be an immediate process. Tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, and large quantities of ammunition require time to arrive on the battlefield, leading to chaos in the Russian command system. The Ukrainian forces are utilizing this window of opportunity to occupy as much Russian territory as possible.
For over ten days, the Ukrainian counterattack, though not yet facing a formidable opponent, appears substantial. The effects of NATO’s training are evident, with Ukrainian tactical prowess surpassing that of the Russian forces to some extent. Furthermore, the overall planning, coordination, adaptation, and intelligence gathering on the battlefield have likely received assistance from the US military.
On August 14, US Secretary of Defense Austin held a call with Ukrainian Defense Minister Umorov. The Pentagon emphasized continued engagement, monitoring of the situation, and revealed that Ukrainian pilots are operating F-16 fighter jets. Ukrainian infantry, trained in complex tactics, are operating German Leopard tanks and American Abrams tanks, among others.
The US Department of Defense also indicated signs that Ukraine’s attacks on Russia are forcing the Russian military away from eastern Ukrainian provinces. US officials believe that Ukrainians are performing admirably on the battlefield.
On the same day, US Secretary of Defense Austin also spoke with British Defense Minister Hill, expressing ongoing close cooperation in countering Russian aggression against Ukraine, coordinating Middle East situations, and maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The British intelligence agencies have been closely monitoring the progress of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and continually releasing key information regarding the Russian military.
The Ukrainian counterattack is displaying a multi-dimensional warfare approach. While ground armor assaults, unmanned aerial vehicles monitor the battlefield from above and preemptively strike nearby Russian airfields to mitigate the risks of Russian airstrikes. The Ukrainian military has also destroyed two bridges on Russian support transit routes, hindering the passage of Russian heavy equipment. Observing Russian troop concentrations, the Ukrainian forces can promptly launch Grad missiles, with F-16 fighters engaging in the conflict.
This series of tactics closely mirrors US military strategies. The Ukrainian armored units trained by NATO, with limited opportunities for offensive operations, are finally able to demonstrate their capabilities. Starting with weaker Russian forces before preparing to face stronger opponents follows an ideal sequence. Kyiv claims to have captured 2,000 Russian personnel and is willing to exchange prisoners of war with Russia, which has left Moscow and Beijing anxious.
Ukraine’s counterattack into Russian territory has set a new precedent in warfare. Previously, Moscow and Beijing believed Ukraine was destined to be on the defensive, even if the Russian military could not seize Kyiv outright, they could maintain overall offensive superiority. The planned Ukrainian counteroffensive meticulously prepared in the autumn of 2023 had limited impact. Now, with Ukraine counterattacking Russian soil, Moscow is in disarray, redeploying forces while undergoing significant adjustments to their command system.
The potential outcomes of the Ukrainian advancing forces, their ability to hold their ground, and the duration of the occupation within Russian territory will continue to shape the overall battle. Ukraine has unexpectedly displayed impressive maneuverability, whereas the Russian response has been sluggish, allowing Ukraine chances to reclaim battlefield initiative in certain areas and potentially break the overall Russian dominance. Moscow is distressed, observed closely by Beijing, causing unease in decision-making.
On August 17, Xinhua News Agency cited reports from Russian media claiming that 24 Ukrainian soldiers surrendered to the Russian army in the Kursk region. Moreover, within the past 24 hours, Ukraine has reported losses of up to 300 soldiers and 31 armored vehicles. In the battles within the Kursk region, Ukraine has reportedly suffered a total of 3,160 casualties and lost 44 tanks.
These battle reports seem absurd. If Ukraine has committed 10,000 troops, lost 3,160 soldiers, approximately one-third of its fighting force, they should not be able to sustain the offensive. However, Xinhua News Agency directly quoted the reports, and Beijing is attempting to conceal the truth.
The Central Military Commission of the People’s Liberation Army may now be considering how to respond if the US and allied forces launch similar counterattacks in the event of a Taiwan Strait conflict.
Although Ukraine has received a significant amount of American equipment, they lack high-end weaponry. The ballistic missiles launchable by the Neptunes system operated by Ukrainian forces are the lowest-end short-range missiles of the US military. The F-16 fighter jets are aircraft possibly phased out by some NATO countries, with only one squadron currently deployed. Some tanks, combat vehicles, rifles, and anti-tank weapons are standard equipment supplied by the US military and NATO, albeit in limited quantities. The Patriots missile system stands as the most advanced defensive weapon. The vast majority of their drones are domestically produced.
With this equipment, the Ukrainian military, while mimicking US military tactics, has caught the Russian military off guard. If faced with the US military and more advanced weaponry, who could resist?
Suppose the American military destroys the People’s Liberation Army’s military islets in the South China Sea, launches from Hainan Island, preparing to obliterate the People’s Liberation Army’s Southern Fleet base, especially the submarine base. In that case, the Chinese military would likely plunge into further chaos.
In the Chinese Southern Theater Command’s land forces, only two group armies remain. If one group army and the naval marines head to support operations in the Taiwan Strait, leaving just one group army, the mission of defending vast areas from Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan, Hunan, Guizhou, to Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau would be impossible. Both amphibious ships of the Southern Theater Command have concentrated in the Taiwan Strait, and the ground units would struggle to cross the Qiongzhou Strait in significant numbers to reinforce Hainan.
Some of the J-20 and J-16 fighters in the Southern Theater Command possibly would be transferred to the Taiwan Strait, making it even more challenging to contest air supremacy against the US military. The Shandong aircraft carrier fleet’s journey to the Philippine Sea would likely be one-way, with the Southern Fleet in the South China Sea vulnerable to American aerial assaults while docked at bases and unable to deter a US landing.
If the British decision to assist the people of Hong Kong in achieving “Glory to Hong Kong” were to materialize, launching a counterattack from Hong Kong Island, how would the People’s Liberation Army respond? Moreover, areas like the Liaodong Peninsula, the Shandong Peninsula, and Shanghai could potentially be selected as landing points for US and allied counterattacks, placing the Chinese military in a losing position.
Ukraine’s surprise move has unsettled the Kremlin and raised concerns for Beijing. This is precisely the scenario the Pentagon hopes to see unfold.
(Translation and rewrite by AI)