The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Is There a Way Out?
(Dr. Stephen Bryen, February 6, 2023)
Transcript available below
About the speaker
Dr. Stephen Bryen is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. He has held senior positions in the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill and as the President of a large multinational defense and technology company. Currently, Dr. Bryen is a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy, the Center for Security Policy.
He has served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the Executive Director of a grassroots political organization, as the head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy, and as the founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. He is the author of Technology Security and National Power: Winners and Losers, and of three volumes of Essays in Technology, Security and Strategy. Dr. Bryen was twice awarded the Defense Department’s highest civilian honor, the Distinguished Service Medal.
Transcript
Introduction
Robert R. Reilly:
Hello and welcome to the Westminster Institute. I am Robert Reilly, its director. Today I am particularly pleased to welcome back to the Westminster Institute Dr. Stephen Bryen, with whom we have already done a number of shows, some on technology, some on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which will be our subject today.
But first I have some background on our speaker. He is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. He has held senior positions in the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill and as President of a large multinational defense and technology company. Currently, Dr. Bryen is a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy at the Center for Security Policy.
He has served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the Executive Director of a grassroots political organization, as the head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy, and as the founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. Dr. Bryen is the author of five books, including Technology Security and National Power: Winners and Losers, and of three volumes of Essays in Technology, Security and Strategy. Dr. Bryen was twice awarded the Defense Department’s highest civilian honor, the Distinguished Service Medal.
He is joining us today to discuss: “The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Is There a Way Out?” Dr. Bryen, welcome back to the program.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Thank you. It is nice to be with you.
The Big Picture
Robert R. Reilly:
Well, let us do a big picture scene setter of this topic. The so-called realist school claims that NATO and the United States trespassed on an area of vital national security of Russia, that being Ukraine, which for most of its existence has been under either part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union or at least beholden to Russia, and that the war was precipitated by the insistence on the part of the United States and NATO that Ukraine could become a member and indeed should become a member.
Now, another side says no, that is not the problem. The problem is a contest between autocracy and democracy, so the stakes in this conflict are not local to that part of the world but in fact effect the entire world. And should Russia, unprovoked, invade a neighboring country that is independent and free, and impose its will by force of arms, and succeed in doing this, this simply offer the example to China to take Taiwan in a similar way, and to other autocrats to behave in such a way. So the stakes are really larger, they are global. In fact, in a way everything is at stake.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
That is true.
Robert R. Reilly:
Do you want to comment on that?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Well, you know, I think you could say it is both things, actually. The fact is the Russians regard Ukraine as their backyard. They regard it as strategic because it has access to the Black Sea. It had in Crimea a major naval port, Sevastopol, which was quite crucial to the Russians and to the Ukrainians. It is a big breadbasket for the world. It has always been a breadbasket.
But it also has a large Russian-speaking population, and that is found primarily along the eastern side of the country and to the south. The struggle between the Ukrainian government and Russian speakers has been intense. People do not like to talk about that these days, but it was intense. It still is intense, and it is partly Russian speaking, it is partly religious.
Now there is a crackdown by the Ukrainian authorities on the Russian Orthodox church, a very nasty crackdown where priests are being arrested and where reportedly – and I do not know if this is true or not, but it is reported that the Ukrainians have actually setup snipers to pick off Orthodox priests supporting the Russian troops, using snipers to kill them.
Robert R. Reilly:
How credible is that?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
I do not know. I honestly do not know, but it is not coming from Russian sources so it may be true. But it is certainly true that the Ukrainian government has been arresting priests, shutting down some of the Russian Orthodox churches. So basically, it is not only a war of ethnicity and language, but it is also a war of religion, so you have that kind of thing mixed in. It is not a happy thing.
The second point is that Ukraine is barely a democracy. I mean, it had elections, Zelenskyy was elected, but all of the opposition was arrested, so there is not any effective opposition in Ukraine today. Either they are arrested, or they have had to leave the country and they are operating elsewhere.
Robert R. Reilly:
If I may interrupt, Dr. Bryen, how much of that is simply due to the fact that it is a country at war?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Well, but it happened before it was at war. I mean, the other part of the problem – this is what makes the whole mixture very complicated is the fact – and I think this is the thing that propelled the Russians into making the rather unfortunate decision to invade Ukraine – was the buildup of Ukrainian forces by NATO, and particularly by the United States, over eight or nine years, where the Russians thought that this was not only going to become a NATO-aligned country but it was going to be a military power aimed at Russia’s underbelly. And this is something they did not find acceptable. So from their point of view, the war was justified on that basis.
And that is where we are. Where we are now is the two, new so-called republics, Luhansk and Donetsk, and then the southern corridor to Crimea, are sort of what are known as the Russian objectives in this war. I think their objectives have changed from that to something more, but at least officially that is what the Russians say.
My own opinion is that the Russians want a friendly government in Kiev, they do not want an unfriendly government, and if that means essentially toppling the existing government, then they are prepared to do it. So I do not know if that answers your question, but that is how I see it.
Robert R. Reilly:
Well, that certainly gives a range. The current situation is that both sides are expecting a major offensive. The Ukrainians now claim that Russia has twice as many troops in eastern Ukraine as they used in the initial invasion, so some three hundred thousand troops, and they are probing all along the line, the length of some 140 or more miles in the Donetsk region, trying to find the weak spots. And the Ukrainians are expecting a major initiative from the Russians.
They simply do not know exactly where it is going to come. It makes life difficult for them, and this has accelerated President Zelenskyy’s requests for more weapons, for tanks, for long range missiles, etc. because of this stepped-up Russian effort.
Now, Russia got its nose good and bloodied in the initial invasion, which exhibited all kinds of shortcomings and incompetencies on the part of the Russian military. They took heavy casualties. They did not achieve all of their objectives. And Ukraine then had the opportunity to go on the offensive itself and take back some of the properties that Russia had initially succeeded in taking.
Now, how would you gauge the respective sides as they face each other today? I mean, many people have called this a World War I style trench warfare.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
It is more World War II style. Artillery is a big piece of it. It is an artillery war at the moment, pretty much.
Robert R. Reilly:
Well, that is Russia’s kind of war, no?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Exactly. It is exactly the kind of war where they have significant advantages over Ukraine.
You are quite right. They did very badly in the beginning, the Russians. Their commanders were not good. They did not realize the nature of the problem they faced or the tenacity of the Ukrainians. I think they misjudged that very badly. Their lack of organization, the lack of proper use of equipment, especially armor, all were exploited heavily by the Ukrainians, and successfully for a while.
But I think where we are now is, first of all, the Russians have gotten better at what they do. You know, they have improved the quality of their warfare, and their leadership is better. In terms of numbers, the Russians certainly are much stronger than the Ukrainians. And even in a war of attrition, which I do not think it is at the moment, but if it was just that, over time it is going to wear down Ukraine. They cannot sustain it. They just do not have the manpower or the equipment or even an economy to support it all, so they are in somewhat dire condition, I think, right now. That is my opinion.
I think a lot of the assessments that we have been getting, mostly from Ukrainian sources, have been highly optimistic and really have not told us enough about the current situation. The Ukrainians are taking very heavy losses. So are the Russians, but the Russians can afford to take higher losses than Ukraine.
And there is the question of replacement. It is very difficult for Ukraine to replace manpower, and equipment as well, so it is getting to be one of those situations where I think we are ending up at a dangerous moment because I think the United States does not want to see, and NATO certainly does not want to see, the Ukrainian resistance collapse, but I think there is a risk that it would, a serious risk.
And you know, one of the things that worries me a great deal is that there does not seem to be any objective Intelligence on the Western side as to what the real situation is. The closest we have come was General Milley, who is the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when General Milley said, you know, the casualties on both sides are about equal.
Robert R. Reilly:
A hundred thousand?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Well, or more, but it was not so much the number [than] that the casualties were about equal, [which] says that Ukraine cannot sustain that. I think he made that clear. He also said that there is no chance that Ukraine is going to take back the territory that the Russians have [taken] this year, so we have almost the entire year in front of us and he says that is not going to happen. So I think that sent a message or a strong message inside the administration, but the administration so far has not figured out what to do.
Robert R. Reilly:
Why are you saying it is not yet a war of attrition?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Because the Russians are making advances. The war of attrition is kind of where you have a stable front, sort of like what happened in Israel in ’71 when they had a war of attrition before the big war started, and they were firing rockets and artillery at each other, but nothing moved. But things are moving right now in Ukraine.
Robert R. Reilly:
Around Bakhmut?
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Bakhmut is one of the places. It is not the only one, but I think Bakhmut is the most sensitive one. The Ukrainians have tried to do a diversion down by Kherson to try and draw off some of the Russian forces, but they have not been successful at it. And if Bakhmut falls, it has not yet but it is getting closer and closer, then Ukraine loses its supply lines back to the front, and then they are in trouble. That gives the Russians a chance to cross the Dnieper River and to move into central Ukraine, so that is a very sensitive part of the battle. But there are battles in Zaporizhzhia. There are battles in Kherson. There are other battles in the north, Luhansk, going on, so it is not just one place. But I think Bakhmut is the most sensitive.
Robert R. Reilly:
How essential do you suppose these requests for more weapons are for Ukraine’s success or survival? Ukraine seems to have been highly successful in a maneuver war.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
In the beginning.
Robert R. Reilly:
In the beginning, and Russia showed significant failures in that area, and they, of course, took large losses. I was reminded in a way of what happened in World War II after the German invasion in ’41. The Soviets took what for any other country would be considered catastrophic losses, yet they did learn from those losses, and they rearmed, and went on the offensive. And they went on the offensive with what one could almost describe as mass human wave attacks against German positions.
They took enormous personnel losses in fighting that way. There were commissars behind the front line with pistols to execute any Soviet soldier who decided that he did not want to die that day. Basically, they would do this until the Germans ran out of ammunition. And then, of course, their leadership at the general officer level improved greatly, and they began to maneuver against the Germans successfully.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
I think that is the key parallel.
Robert R. Reilly:
Yeah, so I mean, what that demonstrated is Russia’s ability to sustain large losses, their ability to learn from their failures and to successfully come back. Now, that, of course, was the Soviet Union, which was a larger country than Russia is today.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Well, they did not have Eastern Europe then, so it was not that much bigger than it is now.
Robert R. Reilly:
Okay, so where does that parallel apply and where does it not? It would seem to certainly be an optimistic appraisal of what Russia might achieve.
Dr. Stephen Bryen:
Well, look, I mean, what we are seeing is a switch by the Russians to a war using a lot of artillery to try and soften up and destroy the resources of the Ukrainian military, and then send troops into specific villages and towns to clean them out. And that seems to be the nature of the warfare that is going on right now. I do not think it is going to change very much. The Russians now appear to have air superiority, which they did not in the beginning. They have degraded a lot of Ukraine’s air defenses, and also some of its high-class weapons, so yeah. I mean, that is what we are going to see more of.
The question is, and I do not have an answer to this, what are the Russians planning next? I mean, they have many options. They could keep the push going at Bakhmut and try to overrun the Ukrainians and force them to move whatever reserves they have up toward that battle, and have a big battle, you know, Stalingrad style, if you want, and that may be their strategy, or they could decide to make a run for Kiev. I do not think they can do that right now, but they may. They have got a big spare force ready to go into the fight.
Look, I do not see how the Ukrainians can win it or stabilize it. I just do not see it, and a lot of military experts agree with that assessment and said, you know, the only hope right now is to try and reach some kind of political deal with the Russians that is acceptable to everybody, if it is possible.