Can Ukraine ‘seize the initiative’ from Russia? What would that mean for the war? – ABC News

In military operations, we often speak about "seizing the initiative". It is a term used in doctrinal publications and heavily emphasised in the conduct of operations.

The essence of seizing the initiative is gaining a position of advantage relative to an enemy and denying the enemy their objectives. In seizing the initiative, military commanders seek to disrupt enemy decision-making, make their plans irrelevant and, vitally, surprise and force the enemy to respond to friendly initiatives.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the Russians have largely retained the initiative. Despite the extraordinary courage of Ukraine's defenders, Russian army forces have retained the ability to conduct offensive thrusts at a time and place of their choosing.

They did so in the first phase of the war at Kyiv and Kharkiv although these were unsuccessful and in the south. The Russians again held the initiative in the next phase of the war in the east, where they concentrated their offensive capabilities in the Donbas.

Recently, however, there have been indications that this dynamic might be changing.

In the east, the Ukrainians have made the Russians bleed for every metre of ground gained. While the Russians may have seized Luhansk Oblast recently, they did so at a cost in lives and advanced weaponsthat hardly justified the small amount of territory gained.

The exhaustion of Russian forces that resulted from this eastern campaignand the introduction of the long-range strike capabilities of Himars has seen the initiative slowly leaching away from the Russian army.

Concurrently, the Ukrainians have been conducting a rolling series of small-scale counter attacks across the south.

Because of this, we may be approaching a turning point in this war.

For some time, the Ukrainians have made the Russians dance to their tune in strategic influence operations and in diplomacy. But this change in the situation on the ground is something different.

There is still work to be done by the Ukrainians, however. They have suffered grievous losses in many of their regular units, which are the ones most likely to conduct large-scale offensive operations. More precision weapons will be required, as will more mechanised infantry fighting vehicles, tactical logistics designed for the offensive and combined training at all levels.

But as the Ukrainians have demonstrated throughout the war, they are quick studies and highly adaptive.

If the Ukrainians can address these shortfalls and current battlefield trends continue, we may well see a shift in the initiative to Ukraine. This will have a significant impact for both sides.

For the Ukrainians, it means not only do they get to fight how and where they want their soldiers can fight knowing that they have the Russians on the back foot. This has inestimable morale benefits and will have an impact on casualties.

At the strategic level, President Zelenskyy would be able to demonstrate to the world that not only can Ukraine defend their nation, but they can also take their nation back (albeit with western support).

This is a crucial message for governments in Europe. With winter approaching and rising energy costs impactingall citizens, demonstrating Ukrainian battlefield success will be the boost that European citizens need so they appreciate their small sacrifices in higher energy costs can and does have profound meaning for a nation that is defending its very existence.

For the Russians, losing the initiative would be another disaster on top of a campaign that has been catastrophic for the Ukrainian peopleand corrosive for Russian military institutions. Alreadythe Russian army has been forced to rush reinforcements from its eastern campaign to Kherson and Zaporizhzhiato shore up their defences.

The Ukrainians are striking where they wish to strike and are forcing the Russians into difficult decisions about the deployment of forces across the south and east of the country.

Once the Russians transition to only responding to Ukrainian offensives and defending lands and towns that are not their own, morale and tactical effectiveness can very quickly degrade.

Added to the challenge are the attacksagainst Russian soldiers,officials and transport infrastructure by partisans in the south. While not predicting this as an outcome here, military forces under such pressure can collapse catastrophically in the absence of excellent leadership. Russian military leadership in this war has hardly been a model for others to emulate.

The possibility of images of large numbers of retreating and captured Russian troops will be a strategic calamity for President Putin. His narratives about Russia's greatness, and its wonder weapons' effectiveness, will lie in ruins.

We can be assured that the legion of social media commentators will be sharing such images as widely as they have the numerous Himars strikes on Russian supply dumps of the past month. And despite the formation of new volunteer battalions for service in Ukraine, these are poorly trained and poorly equipped reinforcements that would be fighting against a Ukrainian army that is armed with western munitions and weapons and much better motivated to win.

For much of the Russo-Ukraine War, we have observed the Ukrainians defending their land and responding to the thrusts of the Russian army into the north, east and south of their country. That situation may be about to change.

The coming months may well be the most decisive of the war so far.

Mick Ryan is a strategist and recently retired Australian Army major general. He served in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a strategist on the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. His first book, War Transformed, is about 21st century warfare.

Here is the original post:

Can Ukraine 'seize the initiative' from Russia? What would that mean for the war? - ABC News