The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
The Pivot of Geography and The Ukrainian Conflict
Author : Maj Gen Jagatbir Singh, VSM (Retd),
Mackinder held that geography, not economics, is the fundamental determinant of world power; and Russia, simply by virtue of its physical location, inherits a primary global role. Or as Robert Kaplan stated in ‘Revenge of Geography,’ “times of global upheaval, testing as they do our assumptions about the permanence of the political map, lead to a renaissance in thinking about geography”. Is there, therefore, a need to examine the clash between Russia and the West from this larger lens?
Because Ukraine connects Europe and Asia and controls the North of the Black Sea, the Russo-Ukraine conflict today has caused a structural change to the balance between great powers. From the West’s perspective Ukraine forms an integral part of pivot of the region. Surely, they would not give up the opportunity provided by Ukraine’s willingness to draw closer to them and join NATO. This would accord security, economic and political advantage in this vital region, pulling out would send a negative signal of weakness to its other allies in Eastern Europe as being uncertain and unreliable partner when faced with a threat from Russia. A repeat of the message sent out by their sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan which is now resulting in changing contours in West Asia, would be disastrous.
Further, does Russia’s push against Europe’s borderlands evoke the long-standing competition between essentially maritime countries and their land-based, Eurasian challengers?
Thinking about the rivalry that took much of its present form in two turn-of-the-century writings: Alfred Thayer Mahan’s ‘The Influence of Sea Power Upon History’, written in 1890 and Halford John Mackinder’s defining article ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ published in 1904. More recently, Nicholas Spykman in 1942, propounded what came to be known as the Rimland thesis, which suggested that it was the coasts and peripheries of Eurasia—principally Europe and East Asia—that constituted the basis of geopolitical power.
The basic outlines of both Mahan’s and Mackinder’s concepts of world power are well known. Mahan posited that the determining factor in world power is sea power. The trade-oriented, maritime country, Mahan said, reliably prevails over the land-focused country. He thought that sea power was more important than land power in the fight for dominance. Mackinder’s theory of geopolitics, dominance of Eurasia (the “Heartland”) enables dominance of the outlying continents (the “World-Island”), and such a combination is tantamount to a World Empire whereas Spykman talked of control of the ‘Rimland’ which is essential to control the world.[ii]
Despite centuries of technological progress and human enlightenment, Mackinder believed that geography remained the fundamental constituent of world order, just as it had been during the Peloponnesian War, in which the sea power Athens faced off against Greece’s greatest land Army Sparta. Since then, geopoliticians have argued, most armed conflicts have always featured a stronger Navy against a stronger Amy. Seapower and land power, in other words, are destined to clash. The global seat of land power — inner Eurasia, the territory of the Russian Empire — would forever be in global competition with the sea power, the mantle of which was transferred from Great Britain to the United States.[iii]
The important geostrategic insight of the American political leadership at the end of World War II was that the Atlantic could no longer be the dividing line between East and West. America’s security became inextricably linked with the fate of the Heartland. [iv] The, then, American Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow, George Kennan, sent a ‘long’, now legendary telegram to Washington, where he urged it to implement the ideas of Spykman by containing the power controlling Eurasia. The result was America’s containment strategy. [v]
With the bringing down of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of USSR the world, it was believed, had become unipolar and Francis Fukuyama had claimed the end of the history with democracy and capitalism as the victors. It was argued that liberalism had won the historic battle of ideas. “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the endpoint of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”. However, the collapse of Russian communism 1991, did not mark the ideological victory of capitalism, nor “the End of History”.[vi]
It rather designated a new stage in ‘the Clash of Civilisations’ as advocated by Samuel Huntington. He argued that the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West's values and political systems is naïve and that continued insistence on democratisation and such ‘universal’ norms will only further antagonise other civilizations.[vii] Huntington saw the West was reluctant to accept this because it built the international system and wrote its laws. Are we now witnessing a clash between two systems; democracy versus autocracy and a challenge to the liberal world order?
Or can the present crisis be traced to Thucydides; “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. The options before Ukraine and Russia were either black or white; a grey area could have been Ukraine joining EU but not NATO. This neutral approach could have preserved the Ukrainian territorial integrity, offered the prospect of a better living standard for the Ukrainian people and satisfied Russian security concerns. Ukraine could have struck a balance and gained the best of both worlds.
Are we witnessing a pattern of structural stress that results when a rising power challenges a ruling one? This phenomenon is as old as history itself. The Peloponnesian War that devastated ancient Greece, as explained by the historian Thucydides was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, that made war inevitable. To paraphrase Graham Allison, a resurgent Russia is ‘Destined for War’. He, of course, had written the book with reference to the rise of China.
Ukraine currently stands at the heart of a new global crisis, pitting Russia against the West. The United States and the European view converge that “a strong, independent Ukraine is an important part of building a Europe whole, free, and at peace”. The rapid expansion of the NATO alliance and the EU, particularly since the 1990s, aims to secure Europe and curtail Russia’s influence over European territory and environs. Recent efforts to incorporate Ukraine under the umbrella of a Western economic and security partnership has tilted the balance, with the extension of Western influence into Russia’s own backyard, in order to bring the eastern gateway firmly under Western control. Russia, if weak in the past, seems now resurgent and though the current conflict aims to regain its own areas of influence. Russia is unlikely to allow the West to expand any further East to achieve its objectives and is viewing this as an existential crisis.
In the struggle between the West and Russia over influence in the ‘buffer zones’, geography has shaped and continues to shape their respective strategies regardless of the historical period or the circumstances. These so-called ‘buffer zones’ generally refer to Eastern and Central European states, even if for the most part these states have now joined NATO and/or the EU, leaving just two contested states – Ukraine and Belarus – to constitute the last barrier separating the West and its allies from Russia. Together they extend along the greater part of this ‘gateway’, the open land corridor stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.[viii]
Russia still values the importance of the entire area occupied by the former Soviet Union as ‘regions of privileged interests for Russia’; Not surprising then that Russian President Vladimir Putin referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as ‘a major geopolitical disaster’.
President, Boris Yeltsin, who sought integration with the West, concluded that while the ideological struggle prevalent during the Cold War was ruled out, the struggle to achieve strategic goals was still alive. Russia closely watched the West expanding its influence towards Eastern Europe by means of NATO and EU membership. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov considered Western strategic behaviour as “spreading … geopolitical influence to the East, which has become, in essence, ‘a new edition’ of the policy to contain Russia’.[ix]
President Putin’s desire to irreversibly absorb Eastern Ukraine into his desired territory can be reduced to two main factors relating to these theories: access to warm water ports, aligning with Spykman’s ‘Rimland’, and the expansion and protection of Eastern land power, reflecting Mackinder’s ‘Heartland’. In a globalised world, the ability to trade with ease brings economic leverage, and leverage brings power.[x]
For a country with such vast coastal territory, Russia has appallingly bad access to global sea routes and trading, with many ports frozen year-round. The Crimean Port of Sevastopol is, hence, vital in providing warm water access to global shipping routes and allowing the Russian military control into the Black Sea and further beyond. Secondly, any Westwards territorial expansion is deemed as advantageous to the Russian regime, who see the US and NATO as a threat.
All countries must make decisions as to where they direct their resources. Resources are finite, including for the United States. For centuries, the exponents of Sea Power have prevailed by devoting the resources necessary to preserve freedom of navigation and to deny any Heartland aggressor use of the seas as a route for expansion.[xi]
The region between the Black and Baltic Seas represents the Eastern gateway leading to the West, but can be also viewed as the Western gateway leading to the East. Russia has not forgotten the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler via this gateway. Moscow has resorted to both soft and hard power in its efforts to consolidate a sphere of influence in the inner Eurasian heartland of the former USSR called the Eurasian Union.
In the present conflict, Russia quickly blockaded Ukraine by closing the Kerch Strait, which connects the smaller Sea of Azov to the Black Sea and established complete control of the Sea of Azov, and by stationing ships off Odessa and other Ukrainian ports blockaded Ukraine from the sea. This ensured that it eliminated the ability to resupply the Ukrainian military via the sea, which could have moved far more material, far more quickly towards the fighting in the East rather than from the Polish border across the entire length of the country.[xii]
The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears, on the surface, to be a land war but we also need to appreciate the central role the seas and naval power play in securing strategic security interests. [xiii]To be a major power, Russia needs to control not only the heartland but also the rimland and thereafter control the seas. Hence to paraphrase Mackinder;
Those who control the Heartland, command the Rimland
Those who control the Rimland, command the World Islands
Those who control the World Islands, command the World
Throughout history, geography has been the stage on which nations and empires have collided. Geography is the most fundamental factor in international politics because it is the most permanent. For that reason, geography also shapes the perspectives of leaders and, thereby, influences their decision-making in matters of foreign policy. It is thus, imperative that we build on the insights, and theories of great geographers and geopolitical thinkers to look at the evolving global scene. Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard’ quoted Napoleon; “to know a nations geography is to know its foreign policy”.
[iv] Dieter Dettke, Geopolitics in the Trump Era: The Dual Challenge of Russia and China for Europe and the Need for a New Containment Strategy, American German Institute, February 22, 2019 https://aicgs.org/2019/02/geopolitics-i ... -strategy/
[viii] Kaddorah, E. (2014). Flashpoint Ukraine: The Pivot of Geography in Command of the West’s Eastern Gateway. Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12661
[ix] Kaddorah, E. (2014). Flashpoint Ukraine: The Pivot of Geography in Command of the West’s Eastern Gateway. Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12661
Major General Jagatbir Singh, VSM (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow at the USI of India. Commissioned in 1981 into the 18 Cavalry, he has held various important command and Staff appointments including command of an Armoured Division.
Very nice paper. We need to take these concepts and think about Indian geography and hence its foreign policy.
The oryx website, which has crowdsourced pics of hardware losses has stopped operating since last month. They were called out for misreporting. Russian losses were inflated by at least 2X and Ukrainian losses understated by the same factor. Armchairwarlord (twitter) was one who analysed pics and found that the same tank was shown in multiple pics, or Ukrainian hardware was shown as Russian.
Deans wrote:The oryx website, which has crowdsourced pics of hardware losses has stopped operating since last month. They were called out for misreporting. Russian losses were inflated by at least 2X and Ukrainian losses understated by the same factor. Armchairwarlord (twitter) was one who analysed pics and found that the same tank was shown in multiple pics, or Ukrainian hardware was shown as Russian.
When Ukranians were using almost all Soviet equipment, it was easy to pass off Ukranian losses as Russian, now Nato Equipment losses are appearing, they dont want to publish and record them.
In battle of Kiev the Ukranians blew up the Moshchun while the Russians and Ukranians were engaged, so both Ukranian and RUssian soldies , some of them drowned but a lot of equipment was flooded- in June-July 22, when the waters receded without markings, the Western media started touting this all Russian losses.
Deans wrote:
In battle of Kiev the Ukranians blew up the Moshchun while the Russians and Ukranians were engaged, so both Ukranian and RUssian soldies , some of them drowned but a lot of equipment was flooded- in June-July 22, when the waters receded without markings, the Western media started touting this all Russian losses.
Same thing with Russian Losses in Vuledhar.
Western media is as hypocritical, controlling and self censoring as Chinese media, all serving to progress their self interests., quoting "human rights" and "green energy" only to further their agendas
https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 78049?s=20 ---> Vikhr is the secret sauce behind most of the recent Ka-52 successes in Ukraine. Nearly eight kilometres of engagement range against all manner of targets keeps it well outta the range of the thick nest of MANPADS that the ZSU has used so effectively since the beginning of the war. Proves a good doctrinal point for development of similar stand off weapons across the globe; and the developmental evolution of localised active protection systems (APS) for MBT/ICVs. Yup, it only get more expensive and tech heavy in the days ahead….
In the modern battlefield - for Helicopters - standoff range ATGM seems to be the way to go nowadays due to the sophistication and ubiquity of MANPADS!! Given Vikhir's success and how cheap it is, what will be the future of shorter range heli mountd ATGMs now?
I had a concept of a not so small quad copter hunter killer. Fitted with battlefield surveillance radar+ thermal imager and armed with 4 ATGM.
This could be powered by internal combustion engine and an all up weight of about 1 ton.
A short ranged helicopter ATGM will continue to be relevant. As an attack helo will be flying nap of the earth. Reducing it window of vulnerability of the launch platform.
Pratyush wrote:I had a concept of a not so small quad copter hunter killer. Fitted with battlefield surveillance radar+ thermal imager and armed with 4 ATGM.
This could be powered by internal combustion engine and an all up weight of about 1 ton.
....
Like an upscaled UK Jackal drone concept..
I have a feeling they will be a battle field component soon... might even have modified AFV/ICVs as the launch/replenishment platform.
It shows biden administration's desperation. Good sign for Russia. But Russia will not be able to extract itself out of tis honourably unless they jump up their own arms production. Russia declared they will product 1500 tanks this year. If they produce even 1000 i.e. 80 per month that will be useful enough!
There are two limiting factors for West - 1. Additional funding; Funding has already culminated, what we will see is half or 1/3 funding levels going forward / 2. What that funding will buy - This is where NATO production will catchup but additional production will come at much higher cost.
The other thing is the accounting errors in the Pentagon. That is being used by the Americans to send more than the budgeted amounts.
Upto now they have claimed about 10 billions in accounting error.
3.5 billions in the first instance.
6.5 billions in the second instance.
This accounting error. Is an error only as long as that equipment doesn't have to be replaced for the US military. The minute the equipment needs to be replaced. The full accounting will have to be done.
The US system is so broken that no one is able to point this out within the media and the political system.
Well, the facts on the ground are not in Ukraine's favour. The transfer is a clear signal that the war is not going well for Ukraine.
The so-called spring offensive did not materialise in the spring and looks set to falter through the summer too.
Ukraine is fast running out of more conventional artillery with supply stocks in America and elsewhere running low.
A 'bridge of supply' is necessary.
America holds a vast dormant stockpile of cluster munitions. They could shift the momentum significantly on the ground, wiping out heavily dug in Russian troops.
American officials are accepting that a legacy of civilian casualties is a risk but counter it by arguing that more civilians are at risk by allowing Russia to occupy Ukrainian land.
American politics is in flux.
There is no guarantee of open-ended support for Ukraine.
Now I don't think Russia and US are signatories to that convention, but this can escalate to include civilians!!..looks like there is no end to escalation !!
In an interview with Turkish media, Azov commander reveals that the surrender of the Azov Regiment at Azovstal last year was arranged between the US and Russia in exchange for the withdrawal of several "high-ranking US officers" from the facility. https://t.me/boris_rozhin/91687
I think they are sending cluster munitions shells and not bombs.
They have a dud rate of 2.5%.
Mr Sullivan told reporters that the cluster munitions America will send to Ukraine have a dud rate of less than 2.5%, describing that as far below Russia's cluster munition dud rate, which US officials say is between 30-40%.
In a separate news briefing, the Pentagon did not specify how many cluster munitions the US will send to Ukraine, but spokesman Colin Kahl said they had "hundreds of thousands available".
US law prohibits the transfer of cluster munitions with bomblet failure rates higher than 1% - meaning more than 1% of the bomblets in the weapon do not explode - but President Biden is able to bypass this rule.
A United Nations investigation found Ukraine has probably already used cluster bombs, though the country has denied doing so.
Early on in the war, the White House was asked about allegations that Russia was using cluster bombs, and then-press secretary Jen Psaki said it would be a "war crime" if true.
Officials are planning to send artillery shells to Ukraine, with each containing 88 separate bomblets, according to US media reports. They would be fired from Howitzer artillery weapons already deployed by the Ukrainian army.
Purely from a war fighting perspective. The supply of cargo projectiles is a logical step. ( I will not call them cluster bombs, regardless of what anyone else calls them)
Such munitions have been used by Ukrainians against Russian armour for the last at least one year. In the shape of Bofors bonus smart round.
These rounds are necessary purely from a war fighting perspective. Because up till now, Ukraine could depend on GPS guided rounds getting the job done. But with the Russians learning to jam those rounds. The Ukrainians are at a massive disadvantage. Because they lack mass of fire that the Russians are able to bring against them.
These cargo projectiles with submunitions are now expected to compensate for the lack of mass. Because one shot delivers several dozen individual explosives at the target area. Most targets in the battlefield are not immune to such munitions.
This is not escalation as it's being presented by the critics of western alliance .
It's the most effective method available for the Ukrainians to counter the Russians.
But all this depends on the ability of the Ukrainian to understand exactly where the targets are. I have little faith in Ukraine and it's ability to hit Russian military.
I have full faith that these shots will be used against civillian population at the first available opportunity.
ramana wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 09:05
Any article on the effectiveness of Krasnopol M in Ukraine?
I have only seen propoganda video of supposed strikes.
But given the lack of battlefield smoke and other forms of obscurants in those videos. I would assume, that more often than not. The round has hit the target being prosecuted.
We don't know how many shots have been made using those rounds by the Russians. Nor do we know the hit percentage.
There have been a lots of you tube vidios from serious western military channels regarding the quality of Russian efforts.
They are all saying that the Russians have adapted and have significantly improved in their application of force against the Ukrainians. Yet there is a lack of willingness to acknowledge that a numerically larger force, when it's either on par or even slightly inferior in capacity to the opposition. Will prevail simply because it will last longer on the battlefield.
This is the only video that I have seen that state unambiguously in its last 10 minutes. That the Russians will emerge a much better fighting force after this war. Regardless of the outcome.
ramana wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 08:57
Also 880 sub-munitions/shell mean projectiles like aspirin bottle sized per shell. So these are anti-personnel?
It's 88 hand grenade sized sub munitions per shell. If we are talking about the US made 155 rounds.
You can see how this can be useful for counter-battery fire. Or against a typical Russian infantry position in the field.
Those are lightly protected from above.
You are right. The BBC report had an extra zero. The 88 sub-munitions version is the older shell with a higher dud rate!
The rounds being transferred to Ukraine are very likely two types of 155-millimeter cargo rounds compatible with Ukraine’s now large inventory of Western field artillery: the M483A1 and M864 rounds.
The M864 uses base-bleed technology to reduce drag by 50% and thereby achieve a range of 18.6 miles. Each one is packed full with 48 M42 and 24 M46 dual-purpose ‘grenades’ which can individually penetrate up to 70-millimeters of armor. The older M483A1 round has more submunitions (64 M42s and 24 M46s) but a much shorter range of 10.5 miles. The submunitions in both are modified to self-destruct to reduce the dud-rate problem, though the M483A1 historically has a 14% dud rate.
ramana wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 09:05
Any article on the effectiveness of Krasnopol M in Ukraine?
Going strictly by telegram videos (that too of only successful videos)- How can you hit 2 feet by 2 feet trench with a projectile? Of course Karsnopol are working perfectly in that case, it is like sniper shooting it is like sniper shooting with artillery rounds.
What info is lacking is how many have been shot and how many missed? Who lases them(drones?). Precision artillery will be on of the key component. Our Excalibur will be susceptible to GPS jamming (but GPS rounds are cheaper), where as like of K require proximity and lasing.
Commander of 58th Combined Arms Army of Southern Military District, Major General Ivan Popov (Spartak), wrote down an appeal where he announced his resignation from his post and the reasons for it.
Popov reports that he raised questions about lack of counter-battery combat, artillery reconnaissance stations and supplys, as result, death of Russian soldiers in connection with this.
According to major general, issues raised by him at the highest level led to his lightning resignation in one day.
"Our enemy could not be broken through front of Armed Forces of Russia, we were hit from rear by senior commanders (Alluding to Gerasimov and Shoigu)https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/167 ... 71872?s=20
Treacherously and vilely decapitating army at most difficult and tense moment," Popov summed up.
Commander of 58th Combined Arms Army of Southern Military District, Major General Ivan Popov (Spartak), wrote down an appeal where he announced his resignation from his post and the reasons for it.
Popov reports that he raised questions about lack of counter-battery combat, artillery reconnaissance stations and supplys, as result, death of Russian soldiers in connection with this.
According to major general, issues raised by him at the highest level led to his lightning resignation in one day.
"Our enemy could not be broken through front of Armed Forces of Russia, we were hit from rear by senior commanders (Alluding to Gerasimov and Shoigu)https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/167 ... 71872?s=20
Treacherously and vilely decapitating army at most difficult and tense moment," Popov summed up.
The 58th CAA is the equivalent of a large corps. It would be commanded by a Lt. Gen. He might be the Chief of staff.
Whatever be the problems he's facing, in the Russian army one is not expected to whine about them, that too in the middle of a war.
He was probably told he can resign if he's not happy.
More worryingly, the Chief of Staff of the Southern front (the 58th army's parent formation) who was a Lt Gen, was killed in a missile strike on
his HQ.
IndraD wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023 17:13
and Ukrops have boasted of one more sr Russian army officer killed while running with fitness app on which was used to track him
btw how is Ru cool with Ukr using British missiles to kill Russians?
IndraD wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023 17:13
and Ukrops have boasted of one more sr Russian army officer killed while running with fitness app on which was used to track him
btw how is Ru cool with Ukr using British missiles to kill Russians?
