2 (and 1/2) Things to Know

1. The combination of manpower and ammunition shortages has continued to adversely impact the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s (ZSU) fortunes this week, with commander-in-chief Oleskandr Syrskyi acknowledging that “the situation on the eastern front has significantly worsened.” ZSU has been incrementally ceding territory even in the absence of a major Russian offensive, which chief of Ukraine's military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov now expects to begin in June and whose aim will be capturing all of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In the past month, Ukrainian forces have re-gained 1 square mile of their country’s territory, while Russian forces have gained 31 square miles in that time, according to the April 16 issue of the Belfer Center’s Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. 
   1. While Ukraine’s shortage of manpower is to be addressed by Ukraine’s law on mobilization that Volodymyr Zelensky signed on April 16, its shortage of ammunition would be at least partially remedied if the U.S. Congress passes a package of foreign aid that includes $60.8 billion for Ukraine. The House is to vote on the package on April 20 so that the Senate can take it up next week. If, however, the Ukraine aid doesn’t make it through Congress, there will be “a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield by the end of 2024,” in the view of CIA director William Burns.  
2. Russia’s GDP is to grow 3.2% in 2024, exceeding the forecasted growth rates for the U.S. (2.7%), the U.K. (0.5%), Germany (0.2%) and France (0.7%), according to IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook cited by NBC. While outperforming these Western economies, Russia will lag behind China and India in terms of economic growth (4.6% and 6.8%, respectively).

4 Ideas to Explore

1. The delivery of U.S. aid is unlikely to dramatically alter Ukraine’s situation on the frontline, Ukrainian officials, soldiers and military analysts told FT after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $60 billion military aid package for Kyiv on April 20. The package “does not contain a silver bullet,” according to one senior Ukrainian official, so it “will help to slow down the Russian advance, but not stop it.” The aid will “buy us ... about one year,” according to an estimate by Ukraine’s Frontelligence Insight analytical group cited in FT. Should the Senate pass the aid bill on April 23, the U.S. provisions will be in transit to Ukraine by the end of the week, but it will not begin to affect the situation on the frontline for several weeks, during which the frontline situation is likely to continue to deteriorate for Ukraine, according to ISW. 
2. Eye-opening intelligence briefings, the counsel of House committee chairs, the realization that the GOP would never unite on Ukraine, his faith and even his son’s acceptance to a military academy are among the multiple factors that shaped House’s GOP Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to put the $60 billion military aid package for Kyiv to a vote in spite of the risk of being ousted by his GOP colleagues, according to WP and NYT. Johnson—who in pre-speaker times had voted against funding for Ukraine—himself attributed his turnabout in part to the briefings he had received from CIA director William Burns and others[1] on the status of the war in Ukraine and the global consequences of inaction, according to WP,  NYT and CNN. At one of the most impactful briefings earlier this year, Burns sought to impress upon Johnson how rapidly Ukraine was running out of ammunition, according to NYT. The briefings left a lasting impression, convincing Johnson that the fate of Western democracy was on his shoulders, according to CNN. “I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we got,” Johnson said. “I think Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I’d rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys,” he was quoted by Bloomberg as saying. While neither Johnson nor Burns disclosed the contents of their conversations, it is known that Burns has publicly warned that Russia may engage in hybrid warfare against NATO. In an April 18 speech, Burns warned that “there is a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield by the end of 2024” if the U.S. doesn’t resume military aid to Ukraine soon. Once Ukraine is defeated, “I don’t think Putin’s ambitions would stop [on Ukraine]. He is also able to use what he calls ‘hybrid warfare,’ a combination of conventional military threats and efforts to undermine countries, either in NATO or on his borders,” Burns said, singling out Moldova as one country vulnerable to such a combination. RM has recently published a compilation of forecasts by European and NATO officials on when Russia may attack NATO after and if it defeats Ukraine. We found no such forecasts by Burns, however. Putin has denied such designs, and some Western and other experts have expressed doubt that he would make a move against a member of the alliance.
3. What would it take for Ukraine to win, and what would a Russian victory look like?  Ukraine could succeed in liberating half or more of its occupied territory if Western aid keeps flowing, the Ukrainian army’s personnel ranks are replenished and the effort to breach Russian defenses focuses on a “small section of the front line,” according to a commentary by Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon in WP. To turn the tide of the war, the West must also ramp up defense production and “go after Russian oil,” according to CSIS’ Max Bergmann. Should Ukraine fail to turn the tide, however, even a partial Russian victory “would create a rump Ukrainian state with a broken economy, while Russia could grow stronger with greater natural resources, industrial strength and agricultural wealth,” Seth Jones of CSIS warns. It would also stoke the appetites of Russia’s “allies in China and Iran, and eviscerate U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization credibility and deterrence,” he writes in WSJ.
4. Stephen Kotkin argues there are five possible scenarios for a fragile Russia’s evolution: (a) France; (b) Retrenchment; (c) Chinese vassal; (d) North Korea; (e) Chaos. Of these scenarios, Russia’s retrenchment represents the best chance for peace, Kotkin writes in FA. To create conditions for this retrenchment scenario to materialize, “Western policymakers and civil society organizations should welcome and reward those Russians who want to deconflate Putin and Russia but not necessarily embrace Jeffersonian ideals,” according to Kotkin, a senior fellow at Stanford University. “It would be a mistake to wait for and reward only a pro-Western Russian government,” he warns.

April 23 update:

April 23 update: No significant territorial changes. Biden signed the $60 billion aid bill for Ukraine after months of Congressional debate and over a year without new US aid bill. Net territorial change in the past month: Russia +33 square miles.