Biden In Kyiv

 Biden's surprise visit to Kyiv is important in a lot of ways. There have been a number of conflicting reports about whether America's support of Ukraine is "bottomless." I presume this is either being leaked by war skeptics or it's a misinterpretation of concerns about whether House Republicans will continue to support funding Ukraine's defense. Biden standing next to Zelensky in Kyiv pledging to support them "as long as it takes" is a pretty clear message of US intent.

We are four days from the anniversary of the Russian invasion and one would assume that both sides will make symbolic attacks to mark the day. I would expect a major drone attack on Ukrainian cities. The US informed Russia that Biden would be in Kyiv so that they didn't accidentally kill him during an air raid. However, it was obviously still risky, and Biden's presence in a war zone is a major physical statement of commitment to Ukraine.

Buried in this update is an interview with Michael Kofman - who's been a valuable voice on Russia. Kofman says that the ongoing probes and small bore, disjointed attacks are the Russian spring offensive. The brute force human wave attacks with Wagner convicts and mobiks are slowly gaining ground around Bakhmut. It's a meat grinder that demonstrates three things about the current state of Russia's war making capability.

First, Putin needs some sort of victory and - for whatever reason - it's decided that Bakhmut - a town of little actual significance - is going to be that victory. No matter the cost.

Second, Russia's primary - perhaps only - advantage is manpower. Not skilled manpower, but the brute force of numbers. They can afford to kill two or three Russians for every one Ukrainian and still have a path to victory. Or so they think. Armies get degraded by poor leadership and senseless slaughter, but the idea that their only path to victory is to bleed themselves and their opponents dry is telling.

Third, offensive warfare is very difficult. It functions best with combined arms and maneuver warfare. That means tying in your artillery with your armor with your supporting infantry, supported by as much air support as you can bring to bear. Russia has not shown this capability at all in this war. They have been especially poor, apparently, at supporting armored movements with infantry. Offensive warfare usually results in high casualties among the attackers, as they have to overcome established defensive positions.

Russia's reliance on meat grinder tactics could very well work in Bakhmut, as they have been throwing thousands of bodies into the bloody maw of Ukrainian defenses. However, it's doubtful that Russia can exploit any breakthroughs or advantages that the fall of Bakhmut might bring.

What is more interesting to me is whether Russia is grinding up important troops in Bakhmut that might be needed to hold back Ukraine's expected Spring Offensive. If Russia is bleeding experienced soldiers in February, who will be left to defend against what will hopefully be a coordinated, thoughtful movement - presumably towards Melitopol and the Azov Sea.

In some ways, Biden's trip and Russian advances are both "noise," significant in some ways but not determinative of success for either side. I would think Ukraine will have the final say some time in April.