Ukraine Might Be Gearing Up To Attack Or Cut Off Belarus’ Southeastern City Of Gomel
Its Foreign Ministry’s ominously implied ultimatum to Minsk and reaffirmation of Ukraine’s right to self-defense suggest that Kiev might invade Belarus’ Gomel Region and/or Russia’s Bryansk Region.
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry released a statement on Sunday warning about what it described as the “threat” posed by Belarus’ military buildup along the border, the motivations of which were analyzed here in early August. Belarusian President Lukashenko also drew attention last week to the whopping 120,000 Ukrainian troops that he claims were the first to deploy there. For reference, Belarus only has around 65,000 active soldiers, one-third of whom are stationed along the Ukrainian border.
Less than a week ago, a small Ukrainian force unsuccessfully tried to invade a tiny village in Russia’s Bryansk Region that’s only 30 kilometers from the Belarusian border. It was likely a probing attempt in hindsight, but any Kursk-like invasion along that front could risk impeding or even cutting off Russia’s military logistics to Belarus’ southeastern city of Gomel. That’s because there’s a nearby highway running between there and Bryansk’s eponymous capital just 30-50 kilometers inside of Russia from the border.
Ukraine might be gearing up to either attack Gomel (which is just 30 kilometers from the border) or at least threaten Russia’s military logistics to there from Bryansk judging by its Foreign Ministry’s statement, which the “Kyiv Independent” noted was the first about Belarus since last September. They ominously implied an ultimatum by writing that “we urge its armed forces to cease unfriendly actions and withdraw forces away from Ukraine's state border to a distance greater than the firing range of Belarus' systems.”
This was backed up by them reminding Belarus that “We warn that in case of a violation of Ukraine's state border by Belarus, our state will take all necessary measures to exercise the right to self-defense guaranteed by the UN Charter. Consequently, all troop concentrations, military facilities, and supply routes in Belarus will become legitimate targets for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.” The stage is therefore set for opening up another front on this false pretext if Kiev has the political will to do so.
There are arguments for and against the five most likely scenarios. The first one is that Ukraine doesn’t invade either Gomel or Bryansk Regions, instead remaining content to continue sending drones across the former’s border and possibly continuing to carry out small-scale raids in the second. The advantage is that Ukraine wouldn’t further extend itself, but the disadvantage is that also wouldn’t further extend its adversaries either. This is the least risky scenario of the five.
As for the second scenario, Ukraine might provoke Belarus into initiating conventional hostilities or orchestrate a false flag to that end. Either could pressure the West into conventionally intervening like Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper reported that it would do if Belarus formally got involved in this conflict. Ukraine might desperately need the pressure relief that such an intervention could bring, but it might either be hung out to dry or the intervention could lead to tensions spiraling out of control.
The third, fourth, and fifth scenarios are similar in that Ukraine could either attack Gomel, Bryansk, or both. This would pose the same risks that the first one would avert with regards to either further extending its own forces and/or its adversaries’. It’s the most dramatic set of scenarios due to how much it would worsen the conflict, but that might be precisely what Ukraine wants if it believes that this could get the West to conventionally intervene in its support, thus implying that it’ll soon lose if they won’t.
Out of these five, while the first would arguably be the best, it appears to be the least likely. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry wouldn’t have made its first statement about Belarus in almost a year if it didn’t believe that this would bring it some sort of benefit, let alone ominously imply an ultimatum and then reaffirm its right to self-defense, which would be twisted to justify aggression in the event that it decides to attack Gomel and/or Bryansk. Something is cooking, and it doesn’t bode well for Belarus.
I suppose 5he obvious clue would be in NATO activity along the Byelorussian border.
Since, if you think that NATO has no inkling and will stand idly by, then you are smoking something fierce.
Then again, considering how Russia got caught flatfooted by the Kursk incursion on their own border, their ISR is clearly in need of serious upgrades.
"The stage is therefore set for opening up another front on this false pretext if Kiev has the political will to do so."
I don't think Kiev has any political will at this point, if they ever did. At least not in the grand scheme of things. I mean, we know who set this all up, and it wasn't them. They just bought into the program, mostly for personal gain. I doubt there are any real patriots at the top. Have there ever been since 1991?
Increasingly we're hearing the narrative that Ukraine has jumped the shark - that they're acting without authority, which begs the question of who's actually in charge. This seems like a set up to absolve the true authors of any responsibility for what happens next.
Assuming there are a least a few competent strategists on the Atlanticist side (Andrei Martyanov seems to think not) and given that it's obvious Ukraine is losing, then (thinking like them) how do you turn defeat into victory, or at least some kind of stalemate? My first thought is to create the conditions whereby Russia is forced to occupy the entire country. That sets the stage for something similar to what the USSR had to deal with post the GPW - a persistent insurgency that took 10 years to stamp out.
Obviously Russia would seek to avoid this, their best scenario being a rebellion within the UK population, but how likely is that? How many of the people who voted for Yanukovych would (or could) get behind that? If you look at the electoral map from 2010, Russia has only captured half of the territory where Y had the majority. Or have those people fled already? I have no idea.
An internal revolt of some sort, followed by a declaration of complete neutrality and a renunciation of any further engagement with NATO would be the only acceptable outcome for Russia, correct? That would have to come with a commitment on Russia's part to rebuild what they've destroyed. That would place a huge economic burden on Russia, so it might be acceptable to the Atlanticists, but given how quickly Russia recovered from previous sanctions, maybe not?
Opening up another front doesn't help Ukraine this late in the game. What's the point of holding a tiny piece of Russia or Belarus that eventually you won't be able to supply, while the Russian army takes most of the south, including probably Odessa? Not to mention dividing your forces creates a power vacuum all the way to the Polish border. Tempting to just drive on through if you're Russia, but now you're taking the whole cake basically, which is what you want to avoid.
Russia clearly has the means to roll this whole thing up, but they clearly don't want to do that, and the Atlanticists know that. They'd also do everything in their power to suppress the kind of uprising I suggested, as that would play to Russia's hand.
Where does this go from here? It seems like most observers are caught up in the day to day minutia - this village captured, that tank destroyed, and so on. I can't listen to it anymore. I just don't see the point when Russian victory is a forgone conclusion. I just want to know what form that will take.