Wanted!... Preferably Live On Television 

The New Bounty Hunters- Moscow Vs. Kyiv

For Russian Federation- Paramount Goal Is To Destroy On The Battlefield, And Broadcast Globally, New Mainline Brand Name Equipment From France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States. 

Bounties For Abrams, AMX-10 RC, Bayraktar TB2, Bradley, Challenger II, Leopard 2, Patriot

Reward For A US$4 Million Bradley Fighting Vehicle? US$5 Million Challenger 2 Tank, US$11 million Leopard 2 Tank, US$10 Million Abrams Tank, US$5 Million Stryker Vehicle?

Russian Federation And Ukraine Efforts, Past Bold And Into Recklessness, To Destroy Newly-Arrived Military Equipment, Russian Federation Commanders Likely Accepting Greater Risk- As Moscow Needs Victories.  Visual Victories.

For Ukraine- Bounties For SU-35, SU-27, T-90M, SU-57, Ka-52, Tu-160M, T-14, Mi-8AMTSh-VN

It’s About Marketing, Branding: Our Stuff Is Better Than Your Stuff.

Not Enough To Capture, Destroy…. Need Video.  Better Yet, Live From A Drone.  Selfies Too.

Given Increased Quantities, Odds Are U.S. Military Equipment Will Be Destroyed By Russian Federation- That’s A Coup For Them- Particularly If On Video.  A Major Headache For The Biden-Harris Administration And United States Congress.

At Russian Federation And Ukraine Casinos- Wager On Whose Military Equipment Is Destroyed First? 

The Worst-Case Scenario: Russian Federation Destroying US$1 Billion U.S.-Provided Patriot Missile System As It Would Escalate At Warp Speed Debate About Support For Ukraine In The United States Congress And Among Candidates For The 2024 Republican Party Presidential Nomination.  Destruction Of Bradley Will Also Create Controversy.

Will Domestic U.S. Political Concerns Result In Ukraine Keeping NATO-Branded Equipment Out Of The Frontlines?

During the next months, as the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of Ukraine commence their simultaneous offensive deployments, focused primarily within and surrounding the eastern portions of the territory of Ukraine, a primary goal for each is capture and destroy new-to-the-battlefield military equipment with a preference for livestreaming the events. 

When The War Began

• On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and further invaded the territory of Ukraine in what Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ), defined as a Special Military Operation [SMO] then on 22 December 2022 he redefined as a war.  The initial invasion by the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in part from the territory of the Republic of Belarus.   

• The war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine did not commence on 24 February 2022.  The roots began their trajectories on 20 February 2014 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean Peninsula and the area known as the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast). 

• The armed forces of the Russian Federation currently occupy and/or control approximately 19% of the pre-2014 territorial boundaries of Ukraine.  

For the remaining months of 2023, the government of the Russian Federation will direct substantial resources towards gaining control of the Donbas Region, specifically the territories of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast which the government of the Russian Federation declared as independent republics on 21 February 2022.  The armed forces of the Russian Federation neither control the entirety of the Donetsk Oblast nor the Luhansk Oblast. 

There is analysis suggesting the government of the Russian Federation may focus on consolidating control of the entirety of the Donbas Region and maintaining its control of the “land bridge” portion of the territory of Ukraine from the Crimean Peninsula (which the government of the Russian Federation annexed on 20 February 2014) to north of the city of Mariupol rather than seeking additional territories of Ukraine.  Once consolidated, the government of the Russian Federation would maintain a defensive posture and seek formalized negotiations with the government of Ukraine. 

• The Russian Federation-Ukraine war has become and will continue to be far more than combat by individuals and their equipment.  

• The Russian Federation-Ukraine war is about optics, about branding, about marketing, and about money. 

The Risk From More; The Risk To Exports 

The government of the Russian Federation has far more elasticity in managing public messaging, yet for both domestic audiences and those outside of the Russian Federation, critically important for military equipment employed on the battlefields in Ukraine to not only achieve expectations, but exceed expectations.  The equipment can’t be as good as advertised.  It must be better than advertised.  

There remains for the government of the Russian Federation an important export marketplace for its military equipment.  

• For Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine (2019- ), continuing to create theme parks throughout Ukraine featuring burned-out, rusting, hulks of Russian Federation-manufactured steel that once were operable military equipment- and where today children climb upon them and take selfies and create videos for distribution on the TikTok Internet application is embarrassing, humiliating to the government of the Russian Federation and to the armed forces of the Russian Federation.  

• For Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ), he will find irresistible the prospect of displaying captured NATO-provided military equipment on Red Square in the city of Moscow, with the Leopard 2 tank from Germany a particularly cherished reminder from World War II. 

The government of the Russian Federation needs to demonstrate that its military equipment is superior in performance to the military equipment deployed by the armed forces of Ukraine- that which is designed and manufactured within Ukraine and that which is delivered from outside of Ukraine- primarily from some members of the thirty country Brussels, Belgium-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), some members of the twenty-seven country Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU), and other countries.

• NATO members: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkiye, Latvia, and North Macedonia.   

• EU members: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 

This urgency to demonstrate superiority will necessitate the armed forces of the Russian Federation committing, and risking, new generation military equipment thus far mostly absent from within the territory of Ukraine.  Basically, the best from the Russian Federation against the best (or almost the best) from everywhere else.  But, the armed forces of Ukraine will have soon enhanced capabilities to target newly-deployed military equipment of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.  

In Russian Federation Arsenal: SU-35 Aircraft (US$85 million); MiG-29 Aircraft (US$23 million); SU-27 Aircraft (US$139 million); T-90M Tank (US$5 million); SU-57 Aircraft (US$50 million)Ka-52 Helicopter (US$17 million); Tu-160M Aircraft (US$219 million); Mi-8AMTSh-VN Helicopter (US$14 million); T-14 Tank (US$4 million).

Thus, a heightened risk factor for both the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of Ukraine in having military equipment damaged, destroyed, captured, or not operating as expected along with reputational risk. 

For the armed forces of Ukraine, there will be consideration to refrain from frontline use newly-acquired tanks, fighting vehicles, and personnel carriers to avoid their destruction.  The question then becomes why NATO is providing equipment if the overarching concern becomes about protecting it from destruction which will cause political issues rather than risk using it for destructive purposes? 

New Deliveries To Ukraine: Abrams (US$10 million); Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (US$4.4 million); M88 Recovery Vehicle US$2 million; Challenger 2 Tank (US$5 million); Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers (US$5 million); MRAPS (US$1 million); Leopard 2 Tank (US$11 million); AMX-10 RC Armored Personnel Carriers (US$3 million); Patriot System (launcher US$10 million and US$3/4 million per missile; a Patriot battery is US$1 billion- US$400 million for system and US$690 million for missiles in a battery); F-16 Aircraft (US$12 million to US$35 million); MiG-29 Aircraft (US$23 million); M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (MIMARS) (US$5 million); Bayraktar TB2 drones (US$15 million). 

The armed forces of the Russian Federation will encounter in Ukraine within months a far larger military equipment buffet than since 24 February 2022.  Not only will the quality of equipment be enhanced, but so too will the quantities.  And while the equipment will be crewed on the battlefield by personnel of the armed forces of Ukraine, much of the training, and employed tactics and strategies will have been modeled by members of NATO, and specifically by personnel from the United States Department of Defense (DOD).  Will there be individuals subject to United States jurisdiction on the ground on the territory of Ukraine when the new military equipment is operational?  Yes, there will be.  As well as from other countries.  No government- or company that manufactures military equipment will forgo the opportunity for technicians and designers to view the real time performance of its products.  

With the increased quantities of military equipment under the control of the armed forces of Ukraine should come better odds for the armed forces of the Russian Federation to target, capture, disable and/or destroy military equipment.  A general rule for an oddsmaker is if there are more targets, the odds of hitting them should increase.  However, with the newly-arriving equipment- with its expanded trajectories, arrive a long-held concern by members of NATO and specifically by the DOD as expressed in this statement:  

• Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of the Government of Ukraine: “If there is a facility which is causing damage to our country… We have to destroy these facilities.  This is war.  And it’s not our fault that it (the target) is located on the territory of Russia.”

While both the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of Ukraine will make efforts, past bold and into or surpassing recklessness to destroy newly-arrived to the battlefield military equipment, Russian Federation commanders are likely to accept greater risk- as Moscow needs victories and more important symbolically for the armed forces of the Russian Federation to destroy NATO-provided military equipment than is for NATO members to destroy Russian Federation-manufactured military equipment.  

Leadership of NATO countries have a fallback- the military equipment is not crewed by NATO personnel, so any defeat is not directly a defeat of NATO.  However, NATO personnel have trained personnel of the armed forces of Ukraine, so the indirect connectivity remains.  This is, after all, a proxy war. 

The White House Messaging When Something Goes Wrong 

The Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) in Washington though officials within the National Security Council (NSC) at The White House, the DOD, United States Department of State, and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are devising and modeling explanation strategies to prepare members of the United States Congress (435-member House of Representatives and 100-member Senate), United States taxpayers, representatives of the media, other country governments, and those governments who have purchased or are considering the purchase of military equipment from the United States. 

What are these explanation strategies?  How to counter, explain, defend, when the armed forces of the Russian Federation, government of the Russian Federation, and media organizations in the Russian Federation broadcast video of United States taxpayer-funded military equipment having been (or if live- viewing in real time) destroyed. 

That’s a US$10 million M1 Abrams tank; US$4 million Bradley Fighting Vehicle; US$5 million Stryker Armored Fighting Vehicle; US$1 million MRAPS; and US$2 million M88 Recovery Vehicle.  The nightmare political scenario?  Destruction of a US$1 billion Patriot Battery. 

Every piece of expensive equipment provided by the Biden-Harris Administration to the armed forces of Ukraine that is destroyed with accompanying video of the impacting rocket, missile, or other projectile, will be included in advocacy commercials by candidates of the Republican Party (GOP- Grand Old Party) for local, state, and federal offices throughout the United States beginning in 2023 and through 5 November 2024, the presidential elections in the United States. 

Some Of What’s To Be On The Battlefield 

The government of the United States is providing thirty-one M1 Abrams tanks and eight M88 recovery vehicles to support the operation and recovery of M1 Abrams tanks; Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (59 recently delivered), Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers (90 arriving soon), landmine-resistant MRAPS (477) delivered), Humvees (1,200 delivered), and a Patriot Missile System (which uses US$3 million per unit rockets) to Ukraine.  According to the United States Department of Defense (DOD), “more than fifty-four countries have pledged more than 1,000 tanks and other armored vehicles.  Delivered or pledged to deliver more than 800 artillery systems.  Delivered more than two million rounds of artillery ammunition and more than fifty advanced Multiple Rocket Launch Systems (MRLS).” 

The government of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) is providing fourteen Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. 

• “The British Army claims the Challenger 2 tank has ‘never experienced a loss at the hands of the enemy’ and is ‘superior to every Russian battle tank’” 

The government of Germany is providing fourteen Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.  The government of Spain is providing six Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.  The government of France is providing up to forty AMX-10 RC armored combat vehicles.  The government of Poland and government of the Czech Republic have since 24 February 2022 provided more than two hundred T-72 tanks to Ukraine.  The government of Turkiye has continued to deliver Bayraktar TB2 armed drones to Ukraine.  The government of Slovakia is providing its entire inventory of thirteen MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine.  The government of Poland is providing twelve MiG-29 fighter aircraft to Ukraine. 

What Has The U.S. Congress Done And What Is The Biden Administration Proposing

 In 2022, the 117th United States Congress appropriated US$113.1 billion for Ukraine (approximately US$67.1 billion defense-related and approximately US$46 billion (economic support, refugee assistance, disaster assistance, assistance for countries on the European Continent, Eurasia and Central Asia, and for other purposes).  Not all of the appropriated funding “for Ukraine” is delivered “to Ukraine” as a portion of funds are delivered to governments to reimburse their direct and indirect Ukraine-focused contributions.   The 117th United States Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) were controlled by the Democratic Party.  The 118th United States Congress has a House of Representatives controlled by the Republican Party. 

The White House proposes to spend US$842 billion in Fiscal Year 2024 for the United States Department of Defense (DOD) representing an increase of 3.2% from Fiscal Year 2023.  The budget proposal includes funding for Ukraine- although not specifying whether the proposed funding is military-related or economic-related.    

• “Supports Ukraine, European Allies, and Partners. The Budget provides over $6 billion to support Ukraine, the United States’ strong alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and other European partner states by prioritizing funding to enhance the capabilities and readiness of United States, allied, and partner forces in the face of continued Russian aggression.” 

• “In addition, the Budget requests $753 million for Ukraine to continue to counter Russian malign influence and to meet emerging needs related to security, energy, cybersecurity, disinformation, macroeconomic stabilization, and civil society resilience.” 

• “To assist Ukraine and manage the aftershocks of Putin’s invasion, the request includes 469 million to bolster the economy and ensure the continuity of government services, strengthen their energy infrastructure and cyber security, and ultimately promote the resilience of the Ukrainian people.” 

• “This request includes $1.7 billion that will help Ukraine win the war and lay the reform and recovery foundation for winning the peace and help other partners impacted by the war stabilize their economies and prepare for recovery.”  

LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT