Was a lack of Ukrainian ammunition to blame for Russia taking Avdiivka?

Published

1 year ago

February 18, 2024

admin

The fall of Avdiivka has handed Russia its most important battlefield victory since it seized Bakhmut following nine months of gruelling attritional warfare.

But was a lack of Ukrainian ammunition to blame for this battlefield loss, and is this rare Russian success the start of a dangerous new phase of the war?

Avdiivka has been the scene of some of the fiercest and most bloody battles of the war. Russian forces have laid siege to the small Ukrainian city for the past four months.

Navalny’s wife shares goodbye photograph – follow latest

The Ukrainian forces have been significantly overmatched by Russian troops, with some reports suggesting that areas of the frontline had 10 times as many Russian soldiers as Ukrainian.

The Russian Air Force has also been playing an increasingly prominent role in the battle, taking advantage of the relatively close proximity of the sanctuary of Russian airspace.

Delivering over 60 bombs a day on to Ukrainian frontline positions eventually rendered the Ukrainian defence of Avdiivka untenable, as the Russian forces have slowly been encircling the city.

Ukraine’s decision to retreat from the frontline city appears justified militarily, but that has not stopped President Zelenskyy and President Biden highlighting Ukraine’s shortage of weapons and the increasingly critical nature of further delays to securing the $60bn of aid currently being delayed by the US Congress.

Although Ukraine will be keen to secure long-term funding support from the US, the critical Ukrainian need at this time is weapons and ammunition.

The EU has approved ongoing funding support for Ukraine, but converting this commitment into ammunition available to frontline soldiers is a challenge.

For the past two years, the majority of the weapons provided to Ukraine have been sourced from the war chests of Western nations.

However, those stocks are now running low, and there are no ready supplies available commercially.

Activating an individual nation’s defence industrial base to design, build and deliver replacement weapons is one of the only ways to meet Ukraine’s future military requirements.

The West has successfully sourced some replacement ammunition – such as artillery shells – but these tend to be used in attritional warfare which favours the larger force, so this is not Ukraine’s priority.

In contrast, Ukraine has seized the initiative in this war through the West providing high-technology, precision strike weapons such as the UK Storm Shadow missile.

This weapon has proven very effective at attacking Russian targets in occupied Ukraine, but stocks are running low – Ukraine want more.

However, this missile is 30 years old, and many of the components are obsolete, so industry cannot easily provide replacement stock.

The West could provide Ukraine with more modern weapons from its inventory or directly from the manufacturers; however, technology is the West’s asymmetric advantage on the battlefield.

There is always a risk that some of the West’s donated weapons will end up on the black market and eventually in the hands of the Russians or Chinese, and the West cannot afford to compromise its own national security.

As a result, the only sustainable way to provide Ukraine with enduring military support is through a coordinated investment in the international defence industrial base.

However, the investment, development, production and testing process all takes time – which Ukraine does not have.

Although Russia has achieved a rare victory by seizing Avdiivka, its military forces suffered very high casualties during the four-month siege of the city.

Offensive action in the winter is difficult; the cold weather is unforgiving, there is limited natural cover from leaves and foliage, and the ground is frozen making it hard to dig foxholes.

So why was Avdiivka such a priority for Russia?

The 24 February marks the two-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and President Putin will have been very keen to demonstrate battlefield success to boost the moral of its forces.

Putin will also want to demonstrate progress in his “special military operation” in advance of the Russian presidential elections being held next month.

However, most analysts believe that neither Russia nor Ukraine have sufficient military resources to mount a significant offensive anytime soon, and that the coming year could be characterised by a series of smaller indecisive actions along the frontline.

But, if the West fails to address Ukraine’s desperate need for munitions, that will create a window of opportunity for Russian forces, and one that President Putin might be tempted to exploit.

World

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

Published

12 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

The location of Alaska is unexpected.

Although close to Russia geographically – less than three miles away at the narrowest point – it’s a very long way from neutral ground.

The expectation was they would meet somewhere in the middle. Saudi Arabia perhaps, or the United Arab Emirates. But no, Vladimir Putin will be travelling to Donald Trump’s backyard.

Follow latest: Zelenskyy says Ukraine will not give up land

It’ll be the first time the Russian president has visited the US since September 2015, when he spoke at the UN General Assembly. Barack Obama was in the White House. How times have changed a decade on.

The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so there’s no threat of arrest for Vladimir Putin.

But to allow his visit to happen, the US Treasury Department will presumably have to lift sanctions on the Kremlin leader, as it did when his investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev flew to Washington in April.

And I think that points to one reason why Putin would agree to a summit in Alaska.

Instead of imposing sanctions on Russia, as Trump had threatened in recent days, the US would be removing one. Even if only temporary, it would be hugely symbolic and a massive victory for Moscow.

The American leader might think he owns the optics – the peace-making president ordering a belligerent aggressor to travel to his home turf – but the visuals more than work for Putin too.

Shunned by the West since his invasion, this would signal an emphatic end to his international isolation.

Donald Trump has said a ceasefire deal is close. The details are still unclear but there are reports it could involve Ukraine surrendering territory, something Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always adamantly opposed.

Either way, Putin will have what he wants – the chance to carve up his neighbour without Kyiv being at the table.

And that’s another reason why Putin would agree to a summit, regardless of location. Because it represents a real possibility of achieving his goals.

It’s not just about territory for Russia. It also wants permanent neutrality for Ukraine and limits to its armed forces – part of a geopolitical strategy to prevent NATO expansion.

In recent months, despite building US pressure, Moscow has shown no intention of stopping the war until those demands are met.

It may be that Vladimir Putin thinks a summit with Donald Trump offers the best chance of securing them.

World

It’s been four years since a US president met Putin – and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Published

15 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

It's been four years since a US president met Putin - and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet where their countries brush shoulders.

But why Alaska and why now?

A US-Russia summit in Alaska is geography as metaphor and message.

Alaska physically bridges both countries across the polar expanse.

Follow latest: Ukraine war live updates

Choosing this location signals strategic parity – the US and Russian leaders face to face in a place where their interests literally meet.

Alaska has surged in geopolitical importance due to its untapped fossil fuels.

Trump has aggressively pushed for more control in the Arctic, plans for Greenland and oil access.

Holding talks there centres the conversation where global energy and territorial stakes are high, and the US president thrives on spectacle.

A dramatic summit in the rugged frontier of Alaska plays into his flair for the theatrical.

It is brand Trump – a stage that frames him as bold, unorthodox and in command.

It was 2021 when a US president last came face-to-face with a Russian president.

The leaders of the two countries haven’t met since Russia invaded Ukraine.

But Trump is in touch with all sides – Russia, Ukraine and European leaders – and says they all, including Putin, want “to see peace”.

He’s even talking up the potential shape of any deal and how it might involve the “swapping of territory”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly insisted he will not concede territory annexed by Russia.

Moscow has sent the White House a list of demands in return for a ceasefire.

Trump is attempting to secure buy-in from Zelenskyy and other European leaders.

He styles himself as “peacemaker-in-chief” and claims credit for ending six wars since he returned to office 200 days ago.

There’s much ice to break if he’s to secure a coveted seventh one in Alaska.

World

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel’s plan for new operation in Gaza

Published

15 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel's plan for new operation in Gaza

The UK and four allies have criticised Israel’s decision to launch a new large-scale military operation in Gaza – warning it will “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in the territory.

The foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, Germany, Italy and New Zealand said in a joint statement that the offensive will “endanger the lives of hostages” and “risk violating international humanitarian law”.

It comes a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved an operation to take military control of Gaza City – and concluded a full takeover of the enclave is required to end the conflict.

It marks another escalation in the war in Gaza, sparked by the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.

In their joint statement, the UK and its allies said they “strongly reject” the decision, adding: “It will endanger the lives of the hostages and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.

“The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.”

The countries also called for a permanent ceasefire as “the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in Gaza”.

It comes as Sky News analysis has found that airdrops of aid are making little difference to Gaza’s hunger crisis, and pose serious risks to the population – with a father-of-two killed by a falling package.

Meanwhile, France, Canada, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations all criticised Israel’s plan for a full occupation of Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed his disappointment” with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s in phone call on Friday after Berlin decided it would stop selling arms to Israel.

In a post on X, the Israeli prime minister’s office added: “Instead of supporting Israel’s just war against Hamas, which carried out the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Germany is rewarding Hamas terrorism by embargoing arms to Israel.”

US ambassador hits out at Starmer

Earlier on Friday, the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, criticised Sir Keir Starmer after he said Israel’s decision to “escalate its offensive” in Gaza is “wrong”.

Mr Huckabee wrote on X: “So Israel is expected to surrender to Hamas & feed them even though Israeli hostages are being starved? Did UK surrender to Nazis and drop food to them? Ever heard of Dresden, PM Starmer? That wasn’t food you dropped. If you had been PM then UK would be speaking German!”

In another post around an hour later Mr Huckabee wrote: “How much food has Starmer and the UK sent to Gaza?

“@IsraeliPM has already sent 2 MILLION TONS into Gaza & none of it even getting to hostages.”

Sir Keir has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government meets a series of conditions towards ending the war in Gaza.

The UK and its allies criticised Israel as US President JD Vance and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy met at Chevening House in Kent on Friday.

Mr Vance described a “disagreement” about how the US and UK could achieve their “common objectives” in the Middle East, and said the Trump administration had “no plans to recognise a Palestinian state”.

He said: “I don’t know what it would mean to really recognise a Palestinian state given the lack of functional government there.”

Mr Vance added: “There’s a lot of common objectives here. There is some, I think, disagreement about how exactly to accomplish those common objectives, but look, it’s a tough situation.”

The UN Security Council will meet on Saturday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Ambassador Riyad Mansour, permanent observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, said earlier on Friday that a number of countries would be requesting a meeting of the UN Security Council on Israel’s plans.