It has been greater than 1,000 days since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, with each side displaying no signal of giving up.

However as Ukraine struggles to carry again the Russian advance, the battle continues to be prompting many questions. Our army analyst Sean Bell is readily available to reply a few of yours…

How grim are issues in search of Ukraine militarily proper now?
Alfie

Sean says: Firstly, I ought to level out that neither the Russian nor Ukrainian army share particulars about their inclinations, losses or morale. Meaning any judgement in regards to the ebb and movement of the battle and the near-term prospects have an inevitable diploma of subjectivity.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t cease us making an knowledgeable judgement primarily based on accessible intelligence and briefings.

Final yr, Ukraine was getting ready for a much-anticipated “spring offensive”, supported by the availability of Western army tools and coaching.

Nevertheless, that offensive didn’t make a decisive breakthrough of the Russian defensive positions, and since then Russia has seized the initiative.

This previous yr, Russia has made gradual however regular progress within the Donbas, with Ukraine inflicting rising casualties on the advancing Russian forces.

Kyiv doesn’t have the army mass or functionality of the Russian invaders, so has been closely reliant on Western army assist to maintain its defensive efforts.

In response, Russia’s battlefield ways have been closely reliant on wave upon wave of infantry assaults, drawing Ukraine right into a warfare of attrition which has inevitably resulted in rising Ukrainian casualties. That is putting a rising pressure on Kyiv’s restricted availability of troopers.

Ukraine did attempt to relieve the stress on the frontline within the Donbas area in August by conducting an audacious incursion into Russian territory within the Kursk area.

Though Ukraine did obtain a component of shock, this technique did unfold its restricted forces over a better space, and Russia capitalised.

As an alternative of responding, Russia appeared to disregard this incursion and easily elevated stress within the Donbas, thus rising its price of advance.

From a purely army perspective, the present enormous Russian casualty price isn’t sustainable. So it might seem that Russia is just pushing exhausting to optimise its negotiating place ought to the forthcoming change of US administration provide the prospects for some type of peace talks within the new yr.

That is putting immense pressure on the Ukrainian frontline, however whether or not this stress is reaching a essential degree isn’t straightforward to evaluate at this stage.

Ukraine warfare newest – observe stay updates

How extremely rated, or efficient, are North Korean troops seen as being in army circles?
Guido

Sean says: With studies that as much as 12,000 North Korean troops are present process coaching in Russia, the query as to how efficient they may show in battle could be very topical.

Russia’s battlefield ways will not be delicate – however up to now they’ve been efficient.

A grinding warfare of attrition has seen Russia endure a median of over 1,500 casualties a day in October, however Vladimir Putin seems reluctant to provoke one other spherical of nationwide mobilisation for concern of eroding his home assist.

As an alternative, Putin has used mercenaries – such because the Wagner Group – to reinforce his common forces, however (maybe inevitably given the excessive casualty charges) recruitment of mercenaries has confirmed tougher because the battle has progressed.

By leveraging his army alliance with North Korea, Putin has been capable of safe invaluable provides of artillery shells and missiles in return for exhausting foreign money and army expertise, which North Korea craves.

Prior to now weeks, Putin has prolonged this alliance to incorporate North Korean troops, and though there are questions on their competence and functionality, relating to troopers in battle, amount has a high quality all of its personal.

As for the “high quality” of the North Korean troops, that’s tough to evaluate objectively. There would be the inevitable language challenges, and their unfamiliarity with Russian battlefield ways, however the wider concern is that they’re possible for use as cannon-fodder to guard Russian troopers.

Experiences counsel that the households of these North Koreans deployed into Russia have been “detained” to make sure that their troopers are suitably motivated to return house as soon as the operation is full.

The unhappy actuality is that for a lot of North Korean troopers, their destiny is to die on the battlefields of a distant land in a battle that’s not theirs to combat and for an unjust trigger.

What use will the anti-personnel mines be on the battlefield, how lengthy are they operational for and what’s their significance?
Monkee

Sean says: The entire problem of anti-personnel mines is emotive attributable to their enduring legacy.

Anti-personnel mines have been initially designed to kill enemy combatants, however later fashions have been as a substitute designed to maim, as that was judged to have a extra detrimental impact on the enemy’s morale.

Nevertheless, there was widespread and rising worldwide concern over the indiscriminate nature of those weapons. Not like bullets and missiles, mines can stay dormant for years, with devastating penalties for non-combatants.

Annually, hundreds of individuals endure accidents from legacy mines, with practically 2,000 civilian deaths final yr, of which 37% have been kids.

In consequence, there are worldwide efforts to clear legacy minefields and in addition ban their future use. Regardless of this backdrop, final week, Joe Biden permitted the donation of US anti-personnel mines to Ukraine.

After over 1,000 days of warfare, why did the US lastly comply with the availability of this controversial weapon?

Most legacy mines (together with Russian) are mechanically activated – the sufferer’s weight mechanically prompts the fusing mechanism.

Nevertheless, the US mines are electrically activated – the sufferer’s weight completes {an electrical} circuit which detonates the machine.

Because of this US mines are solely harmful for so long as the battery holds its cost, which is between 1-40 hours, so any mine not activated turns into innocent with the passage of time.

Tactically, mines have the best utility in defending in opposition to enemy assaults, as when on the offensive most forces concentrate on velocity and momentum.

Though Ukrainian forces appeared initially to have seized the initiative with their incursion into the Kursk area in August, Russia is now massing its forces – and 11,000 North Korean troops – to push the Ukrainian forces from their territory.

Vladimir Putin seems to consider the forthcoming change of US administration would possibly provide a window of alternative to barter an finish to the warfare. In preparation, Russia is pushing exhausting to maximise territory gained to bolster its negotiating place.

That is putting enormous pressure on stretched Ukrainian army defences, which might be why Biden agreed to permit Ukraine to make use of ATACMS missiles in Kursk, and in addition to offer Ukraine with anti-personnel mines.

Give Ukraine is dropping territory, would Trump intervening to stage a ceasefire really profit Ukraine now?
Kate

Sean says: Though president-elect Donald Trump has claimed that he’ll cease the warfare in 24 hours, it isn’t fully clear how this may be achieved.

The obvious choices are brokering a peace deal, or imposing one.

Traditionally, a negotiated cessation of hostilities could be achieved when each fighters see profit in ending the battle; nonetheless, with Russia sustaining momentum with its grinding warfare of attrition, Putin doesn’t but seem able to compromise.

Trump would possibly consider that he can impose some type of “deal” between the fighters, however until the state of affairs on the frontline stabilises, or Russia achieves its army aims, such an settlement would possibly show tough to safe.

For the reason that US gives nearly all of worldwide army support to Ukraine, which may present Trump a level of leverage over Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Nevertheless, given Russia’s present momentum on the battlefield, it’s much less clear what leverage Trump may need over Putin.

Though the target of most Western leaders seems to be to cease Russia “successful”, Trump’s precedence seems to be ending the battle, no matter end result.

The longer the battle endures, the better the chance that Russia’s better army “mass” ultimately proves an excessive amount of for the Ukrainian defences, which might result in a considerably better lack of territory to Russia.

Subsequently, though any negotiated ceasefire would possibly seem to “reward” Putin for his aggression, it might provide longer-term safety for the rest of Ukraine’s territory and permit Western assist to rebuild Ukraine.

So, though the state of affairs on the battlefield at the moment seems to favour Russia, each side are making enormous sacrifices every single day the warfare continues, and ultimately some type of compromise will likely be required to convey hostilities to an finish.

If the US stops supplying Kyiv with army support, might European international locations provide Ukraine in any significant manner for it to hold on?
Tim M

Sean says: First, I must be clear that regardless of the rhetoric emanating from throughout the Atlantic, it isn’t clear what Donald Trump’s technique will really be for Ukraine.

Though Joe Biden’s technique seems to be to “cease Ukraine dropping”, president-elect Trump’s seems to be to “finish the warfare”.

Trump has claimed that he might finish the warfare in 24 hours; nonetheless, he has not elaborated how this may be achieved.

He would possibly take into account that he can apply stress by the availability (or not) of army support to Volodymyr Zelenskyy; nonetheless, it’s much less clear what levers of affect Trump may need that could possibly be delivered to bear to convey Putin to the negotiating desk.

At one excessive, the US might determine to cease supplying weapons, ammunition and monetary assist to Ukraine with instant impact.

That may be coherent with a “US first” technique, however might go away a really harmful legacy for future generations to deal with.

Alternatively, Trump might interact with Putin in an effort to barter an finish to hostilities, however threaten to extend US army assist to Ukraine if Russia doesn’t comply.

What is evident is that even with US assist, the West is struggling to offer the extent of army and monetary support required to show the tide of the battle.

If Western assist have been to say no, Russia would really feel emboldened, and though Europe would possibly search to deal with the monetary shortfall, it might battle to match the army support at the moment supplied by the US.

Nevertheless, the actual query is whether or not European nations are ready to observe Russia prevail over Ukraine, or step up their direct involvement in assist of Ukraine.

Europe has a considerably bigger and simpler army functionality than Russia, and will – for instance – determine to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. This might be direct involvement within the battle however can be a transparent message to Putin that his unlawful invasion of a neighbour wouldn’t be tolerated.

In brief, though a change in US assist for Ukraine could possibly be tough to resolve, there stays quite a lot of different choices accessible to European international locations in the event that they need to reveal a strong response to Putin’s aggression.

If Russia is using North Korean troops, why cannot European international locations give troops to Ukraine – even pilots or missile battery crews or elite particular forces – to assist them counter the Russian aggression?
Brian74

Because the warfare between Russia and Ukraine strikes previous 1,000 days, each side are struggling to take care of the tempo of full-scale warfare.

Russia has ramped up its defence industrial base in an try to satisfy its army calls for however has nonetheless needed to flip to Iran and North Korea to safe provides of ammunition and missiles.

Ukraine has turned to the West to produce air defence functionality and in addition a spread of weapons and ammunition to fight the Russian invasion.

Nevertheless, each side are additionally struggling to mobilise ample troops in response to Russia’s extremely attritional fashion of warfare.

Russia has performed a spherical of mobilisation however Putin seems very reluctant to repeat the method for concern of undermining home assist for the warfare.

As an alternative, Russia turned initially to the Wagner mercenary group to bolster its land forces, which was then bolstered additional by recruiting criminals into the Russian frontline.

Russia has additionally secured the assist of hundreds of worldwide mercenaries by the availability of profitable contracts; nonetheless, the excessive (and rising) casualty charges have dramatically diminished the movement of volunteers, so Russia has turned to North Korea for added assist.

Ukraine can also be struggling to mobilise ample troopers for its defensive necessities. No matter no matter measures Russia takes, the West has – up to now – been reluctant to commit combatants to the warfare with Russia.

Putin constantly tries to border the warfare as a battle between Russia and NATO, however as Ukraine isn’t a member, it can not name upon NATO for assist.

There’s little doubt that if the West was to become involved instantly on this battle it might overwhelm Russia’s army.

However that may be a big escalation and there may be at the moment restricted political urge for food within the West for such an possibility. Nevertheless, if Russia was to achieve momentum within the warfare and the prospects for Ukraine seemed more and more bleak, it’s doable that particular person European nations would possibly determine to have interaction on to cease Russia from prevailing.

Has the UK obtained a missile defence system like Iron Dome? If not, then are we completely defenceless in opposition to hypersonic missiles?
The Scout

Ever since Iran launched an enormous ballistic missile assault in opposition to Israel, there was rising concern in regards to the UK’s capacity to guard itself in opposition to an identical assault.

Navy functionality is dear: tools have to be trendy, sturdy, survivable and upgradeable, and matched to well-trained and motivated army personnel, logistics assist and a bunch of different supporting components.

In consequence, nationwide funding in army functionality is guided by menace – each close to and longer-term – and for the previous three many years there has not been a reputable army menace to the UK requiring a layered air defence functionality.

It’s price mentioning that if the UK have been to be focused by missiles, these weapons must fly over our NATO allies earlier than attending to our island shores. Subsequently, our membership of the NATO alliance gives a strong defence in opposition to such a menace.

By way of nationwide functionality, the primary requirement is to detect and observe incoming missiles. RAF Fylingdales is a UK radar base and can also be a part of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. It’s designed to present the British and US governments warning of an impending ballistic missile assault (a part of the so-called four-minute warning in the course of the Chilly Conflict).

As well as, the UK has 24/7 fighter-jet functionality – Fast Response Alert – that may shoot down cruise missiles, and the Royal Navy additionally has missile defence functionality.

Through the Chilly Conflict, the UK was shielded from missile assault by quite a few Bloodhound missiles that have been primarily based throughout the nation.

Nevertheless, trendy ballistic missiles require high-tech (and costly) defensive functionality to intercept these hypersonic weapons – this is only one instance of the place the dearth of funding within the UK armed forces over the previous 30 years has left a vulnerability.

However, with a US Patriot system costing round $1bn per unit, the UK will be unable to deal with this vulnerability any time quickly with out a step-change in funding.

Learn extra:
Zelenskyy suggests ‘scorching part’ of warfare might finish in return for NATO membership if provided
Starmer makes important shift on Ukraine
Ukrainians united in opposition to Russia as Zelenskyy appears to finish preventing

Why is not the UK doing extra to organize its residents for doable warfare with Russia, like Finland and different European international locations?
Rosa

Sean says: For the reason that fall of the previous Soviet Union, the UK has diminished its defence spending commensurate with the perceived “peace dividend”.

The UK army was nonetheless deployed to conflicts around the globe, however these have been wars of selection and performed as expeditionary warfare. The UK Armed Forces deployed army energy abroad and configured its forces accordingly.

Though Russia and China have been “driving threats” that helped outline UK army necessities, few anticipated that Russia would conduct a large-scale invasion of its neighbour.

The results of Putin’s unprovoked aggression in Ukraine can have profound and long-term implications for nationwide safety, nicely past the instant geographic boundaries of the present battle.

Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a fast repair to addressing 30 years of low defence spending, which is why the UK Strategic Defence Overview has been commissioned to tell a contemporary method to assembly the UK’s future defence wants.

Though the UK political narrative is targeted on rising defence spending to 2.5% GDP for the duration of the longer term, most army specialists consider {that a} considerably better funding will likely be required to develop a reputable and sturdy nationwide defence technique.

The UK must reconfigure its army functionality – each nuclear and standard – to allow the UK to reveal a reputable army deterrence posture that won’t solely deter a possible adversary, but additionally make sure the UK prevails if battle can’t be prevented.

Though this seems a worthy ambition, addressing many years of underfunding would require important funding.

The UK fiscal surroundings precludes giant investments in defence with out making very tough decisions elsewhere – though it’s price reiterating that the primary precedence of any authorities is the safety of its individuals, so funding must be prioritised accordingly.

Within the close to time period, Russia has paid an enormous worth for its invasion of Ukraine and it is going to be a number of years earlier than it has refreshed its shares of army tools, ammunition and personnel to allow it to pose a menace to the West.

Moreover, nations geographically nearer to Russia will undoubtedly really feel an elevated diploma of urgency, which all contribute to UK’s layered defences.

However this solely gives a really small window of alternative for the UK to reply and rebuild its defences. Fail to pay our premiums, and we won’t have efficient insurance coverage in opposition to an more and more unpredictable and harmful world.

What’s behind Zelenskyy’s feedback that he would settle for a ceasefire and lose land? Why now?
Jason

Sean says: Finally, the one one who is aware of the reply to that query is Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Nevertheless, aware that Zelenskyy has confirmed very adept at leveraging worldwide media to take care of a concentrate on the battle with Russia, this most up-to-date interview with Sky Information was nearly actually not performed “off the cuff”.

You may watch that interview in full under…

What we do know is that Ukraine is being pushed again on the frontline, its army is working wanting ammunition and weapons, and the rising variety of casualties is making it more and more tough to face up to the extremely attritional Russian onslaught.

So far, Zelenskyy has made clear that he’s not ready to barter with Putin with out some ensures about Ukraine’s long-term safety.

Underneath Joe Biden’s tenure, US army and monetary assist was supplied to make sure Ukraine didn’t lose the warfare, whereas it seems that president-elect Donald Trump’s goal is to convey the warfare to an finish.

Subsequently, Zelenskyy might be reviewing his negotiating technique in preparation for Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.

Of observe have been Zelenskyy’s feedback that land was considerably much less necessary than individuals – and his precedence was to make sure the long-term safety and prosperity of the Ukrainian individuals.

Why is there speak of Ukraine receiving nuclear weapons? Is that this true?
Joan

Sean says: After the collapse of the Soviet Union on the finish of 1991, Ukraine discovered itself the third greatest nuclear energy on this planet.

The Soviet management had beforehand forward-deployed a lot of its nuclear weapons onto Ukrainian territory, and though the Ukrainians didn’t have the launch codes for these weapons, it was broadly believed that Ukraine would ultimately discover a solution to bypass these points.

In an effort to resolve considerations round nuclear proliferation, the US, the UK and Russia agreed to ensure Ukrainian sovereignty in return for relinquishing their nuclear arsenal.

This negotiation concluded with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Nevertheless, lower than 20 years later, Russia reneged on that settlement and invaded Crimea, and the US and UK didn’t take decisive motion to fulfil their 1994 obligations round Ukrainian sovereignty.

If Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons on the finish of the Chilly Conflict, it is extremely unlikely that Russia would have thought-about a full-scale invasion in 2022.

Following Russia’s choice to forward-deploy nuclear weapons into Belarus final yr, a precedent has been set and it raised the prospect that the West would possibly take into account an identical deployment of nuclear functionality into Ukraine.

Though such a transfer can be seen by Russia as a transparent escalation, it might have supplied Ukraine with the last word deterrent in opposition to additional Russian aggression.

Nevertheless – and it is a important caveat – to my data there was no additional transfer to enact such a deployment.

Not like Russia’s clear provocation by forward-deploying nuclear weapons into Belarus, the West seems to be taking a look at extra measured methods to assist Ukraine.

Is there a menace of European warfare?
Piotr

Sean says: In brief, though there may be at all times a faint danger of escalation, the brief reply is that the specter of a European escalation could be very, very slim.

Though we had assumed earlier than Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 that it had a reputable and harmful army functionality, it has struggled to beat Ukraine and has misplaced a big proportion of its army tools and functionality during the last two years.

In consequence, it is going to be a number of years earlier than Russia has rearmed and is able to current a big menace to a a lot stronger European continent.

Nevertheless, if Putin believes that the advantages of future army motion outweigh the dangers, he’s prone to really feel emboldened to proceed his aggression.

Is NATO membership the security web it was now Trump is coming in? Would he sanction a warfare with Russia if it attacked Estonia for instance?
Gary P

Sean says: Though president-elect Donald Trump has made a number of feedback upfront of his inauguration on 20 January subsequent yr, it isn’t but clear how these concepts will likely be mirrored in future US coverage.

NATO stays a really highly effective and credible army functionality and serves as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.

It has confirmed extremely efficient at making certain the safety of NATO members for a lot of many years and continues to draw new members.

Though NATO represents a really highly effective army functionality by mass, its weak point is that it’s a “coalition of the prepared” and as we’ve got seen in the course of the Ukraine warfare, every nation has a really totally different urge for food for danger.

And, Trump is prone to be targeted on China and go away Europe to take extra management in coping with the Russia menace.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t imply that the NATO alliance is any much less credible, and I believe Trump will present better readability over his intent following his inauguration.

Ought to the Kerch Bridge be frequently attacked to disrupt Russian provides?
Billy

Sean says: Earlier on within the battle, many army specialists believed that Crimea represented a “centre of gravity” for Vladimir Putin – one thing he would by no means settle for dropping.

Subsequently, if Ukraine had been capable of isolate Crimea and probably seize it again from Russian occupation, Russia could possibly be minded to barter an finish to the battle in phrases beneficial to Ukraine.

The Kursk street/rail bridge would have been a major goal as this was a main arterial logistics route for Russia.

Nevertheless, since that point Russia has secured many of the land bridge from Russia to Crimea and is subsequently considerably much less reliant on the Kursk bridge for logistic assist to Crimea and its occupying forces.

In consequence, aware that Ukraine is wanting munitions, the bridge might be not a precedence for Ukrainian concentrating on right now.

Given Putin’s nuclear threats are meaningless, ought to we take into account giving Ukraine much more highly effective weaponry past ATACMS?
Mark in Leeds

Sean says: Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the West has supplied army and monetary assist.

Nevertheless, all through that point the West has tried to stability assist to Ukraine with the menace that the warfare would escalate into an East vs West battle with important penalties.

There was important political sensitivity over the extent of assist supplied to Ukraine, however this nervousness has served to embolden Putin.

Putin is aware of that his ambitions in Ukraine couldn’t be achieved if the West have been to have interaction within the battle – Russia has struggled to beat Ukraine, which has a fraction of the army functionality accessible to NATO.

Nevertheless, this reluctance to have interaction will likely be perceived as a weak point by Putin – and in addition by aligned nations comparable to Iran, North Korea and China.

Historical past means that bullies solely respect power – they exploit weak point.

No one desires to see the warfare escalate additional, however appeasement is sort of actually not the easiest way to keep away from such an end result, particularly within the long-term.