Vladimir Putin’s attacks on Kyiv show his emotions are overriding military strategy

Published

2 years ago

June 3, 2023

admin

Russia may have stepped up the frequency and intensity of missile and drone attacks on Ukraine’s capital, but Kyiv’s air defences appear to be holding firm.

So what is the military benefit of targeting urban populations, and why is Vladimir Putin doing so?

Historically, wars were fought to destroy the enemy’s army and occupy its capital. Mr Putin remains focused on destroying Ukraine’s ability to fight (just witness the grinding war of attrition in Bakhmut) and occupying Kyiv by laying it under aerial siege.

But will this onslaught help the Russian war effort, or is it simply the actions of an angry and frustrated autocrat?

Russia tried to take Kyiv very early in the war (remember the 40-mile convoy of military equipment), but although that attempt failed, Mr Putin will still see the Ukrainian capital – the seat of power – as the ultimate prize.

Most military analysts believe the objectives of Mr Putin’s so-called special military operation remain two-fold: securing Crimea; and seizing the Donbas.

Mindful that military resources are always limited, Russia objective should be laser-focused on these objectives.

Having culminated in Bakhmut, Russia should now be leveraging its “superpower” advantage to target Ukrainian resupply lines and its preparations for the forthcoming offensive.

It will be very difficult for Ukraine to hide its military preparations from Russian satellites; besides, Russia will have a multitude of spies operating within Ukraine that would be able to provide real-time targeting information to inform Russia’s ballistic missile capability.

Instead, in apparent response to Ukraine’s “temerity” in conducting drone attacks against Moscow, Mr Putin is targeting his limited supplies of missiles at the civilian population of Kyiv.

Has Putin made the same mistake as Hitler?

In the Second World War, Nazi Germany was preparing to invade Britain, but first Hitler had to destroy the RAF.

The Battle of Britain brought the RAF to its knees; however, in anger at the allies’ efforts to bomb German cities, Hitler took his foot off the throat of the RAF and switched to targeting London.

An irrational decision, but one which allowed the RAF to recover and helped turn the tide of the war.

Has Mr Putin – a politician with no military experience – made the same mistake by targeting Kyiv?

Russia’s imported drones: Irritating but not usually deadly

Russia is using long-range Shahed 136 drones – imported from Iran – to conduct most of the strikes against Kyiv.

These inexpensive and simple drones fly at around 100mph, and although they have a nasty punch, they are not difficult to shoot down (even if the wreckage still wrecks lives).

They are not unlike wasps in summer; irritating, and painful if they sting, but not usually deadly. Besides, few drones now get through.

Russia also continues to fire long-range ballistic missiles against Kyiv; these are usually very accurate weapons and more difficult to shoot down, but the provision of specialist Western air defence capabilities – such as US Patriot – has proven extremely effective at protecting the capital.

So why does Russia continue to waste limited supplies of expensive missiles against non-military targets?

Firstly, Ukrainian military capability is hidden, mobile, and dispersed.

A slick time-sensitive-targeting (TST) capability involves linking satellite imagery to HQ analysis, before tasking a unit to prosecute the target – and swiftly. Simple? For the Russians, no.

TST is difficult and requires great teamwork between different agencies – the West invests heavily in the people and technology required for success; Russia does not. Russia cannot conduct high-tempo TST, so instead does what it can – target civilians.

Secondly, Mr Putin does not have any military training, so strategy, doctrine and main effort are not phrases that resonate with him.

Instead, he is driven by symbolism – Bakhmut had limited military value, but Mr Putin wanted a success for his May Day celebration.

Likewise, he wants to punish President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his audacity in fighting back, but like Hitler and the Battle of Britain, Mr Putin is allowing emotion to override military strategy.

Ballistic missiles are complex weapons; Russia is currently using them up faster than they can be replaced.

The waves of missile attacks on Kyiv do not have any military benefit and are not contributing to Russia’s war ends; they are simply the actions of a frustrated leader who is seeking to vent anger at his tenacious opponent.

This lack of a ruthless focus on military objectives is a critical weakness of Russia’s military machine, which we can expect to see exploited in the coming months.

World

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

Published

10 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

13 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

13 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.