The Russian army’s current attacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure have two main thrusts – and they are weak. Because even if it may not seem so to many Western observers, Vladimir Putin has recently come under massive pressure in Russia.
It is an expression of weakness. For days, the Russian army has been targeting attacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure – on electricity plants, waterworks and telecommunications facilities; Residential buildings are also shot at. The reason for this asynchronous warfare was probably the attack on the bridge, which the Russian mainland is located across the Kerch Strait with Crimea, allegedly carried out by the Ukrainian domestic secret service SBU.
But the reason is deeper: in recent weeks, Putin has come under massive pressure from the war party in Russia’s secret service and military. The nationalist right has also been agitating against the allegedly hesitant and hesitant conduct of the war for a long time. With the – like war crimes – attacks on civilian infrastructure, Putin now wants to demonstrate toughness and determination.
The attacks have two main thrusts: On the one hand, the Russian leadership wants to make the everyday life of the Ukrainian population much more difficult. Bottlenecks in electricity, heat and water supply are expected to weaken the Ukrainians’ will to resist, especially in the coming winter. On the other hand, the energy shortage also means a heavy burden on Ukraine’s economy, which is already faltering. Companies cannot produce or only partially if they lack the energy.
This is followed by a more far-reaching motive from Russia: The difficult supply situation in winter is intended to trigger another wave of refugees from Ukraine. On the one hand, this would confront the EU states with a new wave of migration, and on the other hand, it would further weaken the situation of Ukrainian companies – namely due to a lack of workers.
For Russia, the bombing of civilian infrastructure is both an instrument of terror against the civilian population and a lever to severely damage the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine’s GDP will collapse by at least 35 percent anyway. But the more difficult the economic situation becomes, the more expensive it becomes for the West, which has to keep Ukraine afloat financially.
However, the Russian bombardments do not bring any advantages for Russia on the military front line. The Russian army can no longer hold the long front in several places. The thinned out ranks of soldiers are a major factor in this. It is disputed whether the partial mobilization ordered by Putin can effectively improve this predicament. The areas of the Cherson region, which Russia occupies on the west bank of the Dnipro, are currently particularly at risk. Another military defeat of the Russian army is to be expected soon.
But the war will continue for a long time. A war ends when one party in the conflict can assert itself militarily or when both parties are militarily exhausted and no more successes can be expected on the battlefield. We are still a long way from both scenarios. Even the approaching winter will not bring the fighting to a standstill.
Gerhard Mangott is a professor of political science with a special focus on international relations and security in the post-Soviet space. He teaches at the Institute for Political Science in Innsbruck and is a lecturer at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna
The West continues to support Ukraine militarily and financially. By supplying increasingly complex modern weapons systems, the West, together with the guidance and support of operational warfare, enables the Ukrainian army to succeed in retaking territory. This will certainly not abate, even if the voices warning of a military (nuclear) escalation triggered by this are getting louder and louder.
Russia’s military situation in Ukraine is therefore increasing. But Russia is also under pressure politically. The UN General Assembly has condemned the attempted annexations of four Ukrainian regions by a large majority. Although this resolution is not binding under international law, it is a clear political signal.
However, signals of dissatisfaction and distancing are also coming from India and, somewhat less clearly, from China. Both states are pushing for a ceasefire and firmly reject further military escalation by Russia. In the coming weeks, Russia will be challenged on both the military and the political front.
