“Not a paper tiger” .. How do American experts evaluate the Russian army?

WASHINGTON

- Many American military experts believe that the Russian military campaign against Ukraine has been marred by strategic mistakes since its inception on February 24, and one of the most important weaknesses observed by the American military is related to the small size of combat units and military formations dedicated to a mission as large as the invasion of Ukraine, and cut Some of its regions and the change of its ruling regime, in addition to the limited logistical capabilities to support the forces.

After more than 7 months, American observers, to whom Al Jazeera Net spoke, were not surprised by Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent steps, especially those related to the call for partial mobilization, in addition to his threats to use nuclear weapons.

Officially, Washington responded to the Russian president's threats, warning of dire consequences, and that the US response would be "decisive", and at the same time, Moscow says that it is in intermittent contact with Washington on nuclear issues.

Putin cannot win with conventional weapons

In an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, Robert Pearson, a professor of international relations at West Point - which is the most famous American military academy - indicated that "President Putin finally seems to realize the extent to which Russia has lost its war against Ukraine, as he believes that the supply of the Russian army with recruits will somehow stop progress." Ukraine or it will allow Russia to regain offensive momentum."

Pearson added that "it is unlikely that Putin will succeed in his endeavor, because the new forces will be poorly trained and equipped, and poorly motivated and led, and the deployment of these new forces will take some time, so mobilization is unlikely to change the course of the war in the near future, and that Putin's decision is also fraught with risks domestically as we have seen in the protests in many Russian regions and the apparent mass exodus of young people trying to flee the country and avoid conscription, so this decision is likely to come with great risks and very few benefits for Putin in my opinion."

For his part, in an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, Professor Robert Orting, professor of security studies at George Washington University in the American capital, stated that "the Russian president's call for partial mobilization is an admission that Russia is losing the war, and that he made a mistake in underestimating the capacity of the Ukrainian army, as indicated by his threat to use nuclear weapons." Putin believes that he cannot win the war with conventional weapons, and his threats are greatly destabilizing by increasing the hypothesis that he can use these weapons, however, resorting to nuclear weapons is highly unlikely, and neither Ukraine nor its Western allies should succumb to this kind of nuclear blackmail. .

Nuclear threats..a hoax

Military expert Pearson considered that Putin's threat to resort to nuclear weapons is a "hoax," adding, "Putin is trying to intimidate the West into stopping its support for Ukraine, but the United States and its allies have made it clear publicly and privately that although we will not respond in kind to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, The response will be devastatingly costly for Russia, and I believe deterrence will continue to hold for that reason."

For his part, military expert David de Roche - a former combatant and assistant professor at the Center for Near East and South Asia at the National Defense University of the Ministry of Defense (Pentagon) - told Al Jazeera Net that "Putin's threat to resort to nuclear weapons is not new, as he has threatened to use them since the first day of the invasion. It was an attempt to prevent the West from supporting Ukraine, and to some extent its nuclear threats succeeded. Washington, for example, prevented Ukraine from using HIMARS missiles to strike targets within Russia's borders, although the conduct of combat operations in eastern Ukraine is located in the city of Belgorod, which is located within the range of the HIMARS missile artillery.

The wisdom of providing medium and long-range American weapons to Ukraine

Pearson called for continuing to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs to sustain its momentum and expel Russia from Ukrainian territory. The experience of the past seven months has demonstrated that early fears about Russian escalation or Russian retaliation outside Ukraine are exaggerated, "and going back I think the West, collectively, was very reluctant to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs."

Orting agreed with Pearson's opinion, and demanded the Biden administration "to provide Ukraine with all the weapons necessary to push the Russian forces out of Ukrainian territory, and through his plans to annex Ukrainian lands to Russia, Putin increases the destabilization and complications of the situation, and the West will not recognize the borders that Russia declares for itself, as happened with the peninsula. Crimea, so long-range weapons are needed to disrupt Russia's supply lines in Ukraine, and the United States and the West have to provide them."

The Russian army is not a paper tiger

American experts are divided in their assessment of the strength and capabilities of the Russian army, especially in light of the advances of Ukrainian forces in recent weeks.

“It is clear that the Russian army was not the full force many thought, and it is difficult to know how it will fight until it is tested in battle, and now we know how bad it is, but the Russians can continue to wreak havoc in Ukraine as they did months ago,” Pearson says. They have killed and destroyed a lot since last February, unfortunately they will continue to do this for some time, so it is not a toothless tiger, but Russia should be completely expelled from Ukraine so that this war can be justly ended."

Orting also refused to characterize the Russian army as a paper tiger with evidence that it still occupies large parts of Ukrainian lands, and it would be very difficult to force the Russian forces to leave these lands by fighting.

For his part, de Roche considered that the experience of the seven months of combat reveals that "Putin has a large army, but it is a third-class army, and yet his nuclear capabilities are still first-class, so he should be expected to continue reminding the world that he has them."

De Roche emphasized that "simply because of its size, the Russian army is still a formidable army, and it also has a tremendous ability to launch mass artillery fire, albeit at random targets, so the Russian army is still a lethal force and has not been defeated yet, but it is clear that it is not the army that We thought it was."