Last news in Fakti

Military expert: What are the goals of the Russian army in the advance to Kharkiv? Buffer zone or distraction?

Analysis by Dara Massicot, renowned Carnegie Endowment military strategist

Май 11, 2024 08:44 280

Military expert: What are the goals of the Russian army in the advance to Kharkiv? Buffer zone or distraction?  - 1

On X, the social media platform formerly Twitter, Dara Massikot, a renowned Carnegie Endowment military strategist, analyzes Russia's unfolding military offensive in the Kharkiv region.

The essence of her analysis is the basic question posed: What are the real intentions of the Kremlin in this strategic maneuver? The search for a buffer zone or a distraction tactic?

Is this operation a calculated attempt to create a “buffer zone“ in defense of Belgorod, as supposed by military personnel in the Ukrainian army? Or could it be a more sophisticated strategy to divert the focus of the Ukrainian armed forces from other critical fronts?

The formation of Task Force "North"

Massicot quoted the announcement of the Russian Ministry of Defense about the newly created operational group of troops called "North". This group, led by General Alexandre Lapin — known for her role in the 2022 invasion — highlights potential Russian escalation in the region.

Still, capturing the entire Kharkiv area would require an estimated military strength of 75,000 to 100,000 soldiers, which the Russian army currently lacks.

Establishing a sanitary zone also requires significant manpower and combat equipment. According to the expert, to establish a 30-kilometer sanitary zone around the borders of Kharkiv requires at least 30-40 thousand soldiers equipped with the necessary armored equipment.

However, the deployment of significant armored forces, aviation and drones is not in sight, leaving room for speculation about Russia's strategic reserves.

Furthermore, the analyst notes that the offensive is diverting resources that could be deployed to the Donetsk region or other fronts, potentially indicating too little strategic justification for such a decision. The lack of troop movement from the occupied territories to Kharkiv suggests reliance on less experienced reserves or reconstituted units, raising questions about the effectiveness and objectives of Russian strategy.

Massicot concludes that a clearer understanding of Russia's military objectives in the Kharkiv direction can be obtained from a detailed analysis of the combat units and resources accumulated on the border. Such an analysis is critical as there is already considerable strain on the Ukrainian Armed Forces tasked with countering these maneuvers under increasingly difficult circumstances.

In this complex chess game of military strategy, the moves Russia has made in the Kharkiv area are more than just deploying troops; they are a reflection of broader tactical objectives that deserve careful observation and analysis. As the situation unfolds, the international community remains vigilant, trying to decipher the Kremlin's next move in this complex geopolitical landscape.