May 29, 2024

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 29, 2024

Institute for the Study of War

Angelica Edwards, Nicole Wolkov, Grace Mappes, Karolina Hird, and Frederick W. Kagan

May 29, 2024, 7:15pm ET 

Advisor to the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Mykhaylo Podolyak stated that US-provided military aid has started arriving on the frontline but that it will take “weeks” for the gradual increase in US-provided military aid to reach “critical volumes.”[1] Podolyak told Bloomberg in an article published on May 29 that Russian forces currently have the “absolute advantage” in shells and missiles and that Russian forces will continue to try to advance along the frontline presumably to take advantage of the time before US military assistance arrives in sufficient quantities at the front. Podolyak warned that Russia may be trying to force Ukraine and its allies to freeze the current frontline — a situation that ISW has long assessed would be advantageous to Russia by giving the Russian military time to reconstitute and prepare for renewed aggression against Ukraine.[2] Additional Western military assistance will also likely take time to reach the frontlines and to be properly integrated into Ukrainian frontline troop formations. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala stated on May 28 that the first “tens of thousands” of 155mm artillery ammunition sourced through the Czech-led initiative for Ukraine will arrive in Ukraine within “days.”[3]

Sweden announced its 16th and largest military aid package to Ukraine, worth 13.3 billion kronor (about $1.25 billion), on May 29.[4] The Swedish Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported that the package includes ASC 890 Airborne Surveillance and Control aircraft (the Swedish version of an airborne early warning and control [AWACS] airborne radar system) and RB 99-AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles (that are also modified to be ground-to-air) to strengthen Ukrainian air defense capabilities, additional 155mm artillery ammunition, and “the entire Swedish stock” of Pansarbandvagn 302 armored vehicles among other provisions.[5]

Western officials are increasingly suggesting that they support Ukraine’s right to use Western-provided weapons to strike military targets in Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron stated on May 28 at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that France supports Ukraine’s use of French-provided weapons to strike Russian “military sites from which missiles are fired” and other Russian “military sites from which Ukraine is attacked” in Russian territory.[6] Macron noted that Ukraine should not strike “other military” or civilian targets in Russia, likely referring to Russian sites that are not actively involved in attacks on Ukraine. Scholz stated at the May 28 press conference that Germany recognizes Ukraine’s right to defend itself against Russian strikes under international law as long as “regulations” on Ukraine’s use of Western-provided weapons are “within the framework of international law.”[7] Scholz’s recognition of Ukraine’s right to strike military targets on Russian territory is notable as it defines the issue in terms of international legal norms but ultimately does not reflect a change in Germany’s position against providing Ukraine with long-range Taurus missiles or allowing Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with German-provided weapons.[8]

Other Western countries have recently noted that they do not impose restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to use weapons they have provided to strike military targets in Russia. Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly stated on May 29 that Canada “does not have any conditions for the use of arms supplied to Ukraine” and that Canada does not oppose Ukraine using Canada-provided weapons against military targets in Russia.[9] Polish Deputy Defense Minister Cezary Tomczyk stated that Poland also has no restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Polish-supplied weapons on military targets in Russia.[10] Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen stated that Finland has not set “special restrictions” on its military assistance to Ukraine as Finland “assumes that it will be used in accordance with international law.”[11] Thus far 10 countries have expressed support for Ukraine’s use of weapons they have provided to strike military targets on Russian territory with some or no restrictions: the UK, France, Sweden, Czechia, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Canada.[12] US Pentagon Spokesperson Sabrina Singh and US National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby both reiterated on May 28 that there is no change in the US position against using US-provided weapons to strike military targets in Russia.[13]

Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed Russian Presidential Aide Alexei Dyumin as Secretary of Russia’s State Council on May 29.[14] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov stated that Dyumin will “resolve issues” regarding the functions of the State Council, which is an advisory body that tasks and coordinates the implementation of domestic and foreign policy between Russia’s federal, regional, and municipal authorities, including occupation administrations in occupied Ukraine, and assists in drafting Russia’s “strategic goals.”[15] Putin recently appointed Dyumin to the supervisory board of state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec and has specifically tasked Dyumin with assisting Russian efforts to provide the Russian military with its necessary weapons and equipment and oversee Russia’s defense industrial base (DIB).[16] Some Russian milbloggers amplified the news of Dyumin’s new position, and one Russian milblogger claimed that Dyumin has “all [the] best qualities” of the infamous Soviet director of the Soviet People’s Commissariat for International Affairs (NKVD) Lavrentiy Beria.[17] The milblogger is likely referring to Beria’s lesser-known role in expanding the Soviet Union’s defense production by mobilizing slave labor in the Soviet Union’s Gulag — a system of labor camps and prisons that imprisoned millions of criminals and political prisoners — insinuating that Dyumin will similarly succeed in expanding Russia’s defense production.[18]

Russia blamed Ukraine for the recent several-month-long suspension of prisoner of war (POW) exchanges over the backdrop of reports of pervasive Russian abuses against Ukrainian POWs. Kremlin-appointed Russian Commissioner for Human Rights Tatiana Moskalkova accused Ukraine of making “far-fetched demands” that caused a pause in POW exchanges over the past several months and claimed that Russia has done its best to maintain a dialogue with the Ukrainian government and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regarding POW affairs.[19] Representative for the Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of POWs Petro Yatsenko noted in November 2023 that Russia previously paused POW exchanges over the summer of 2023 for an unspecified reason.[20] The last POW exchange between Russia and Ukraine took place on February 8, 2024, with the facilitation of the United Arab Emirates.[21] Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) noted on May 29 that Ukraine has had to open a third camp for Russian POWs due in part to “the actual blocking of exchanges by the Russian side,” and in part due to the growing numbers of Russian deserters who become POWs, consistent with several recent Ukrainian statements that Russian officials are the ones resisting the continuation of POW exchanges.[22]

In recent months following the last POW exchange, Russia has perpetrated a series of apparent abuses against Ukrainian POWs, including summarily executing Ukrainian POWs and using POWs as human shields on the battlefield (both violations of the Geneva Convention on POWs) and purportedly operating a “black market” to sell Ukrainian POWs to Russian paramilitary groups.[23] Russia is also using a battalion comprised mainly of Ukrainian POWs to fight in Ukraine, another blatant violation of the Geneva Convention on POWs.[24] Moskalkova’s accusation that Ukraine is the party responsible for the cessation of POW exchanges may be an attempt to rhetorically shift the blame towards Ukraine and obfuscate a litany of well-documented Russian abuses of Ukrainian POWs, potentially to stoke discontent in Ukrainian society or to discourage Western support for Ukraine. The Kremlin appears to be using the politics of POW exchanges as another rhetorical device to undermine Ukrainian decision-making.

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues his efforts to prepare the Russian population for a protracted war effort. Putin stated during a meeting of Russia’s Council for Strategic Development and National Projects and the State Council commission for socio-economic development on May 29 that all Russians must understand that they are living through a unique and historical moment and must “work as if [they are] on the frontline” and “feel mobilized” for Russia to achieve its goals.[25] Kremlin officials often invoke the mythos of the Great Patriotic War (Second World War) to inspire support and confidence in Russia’s war effort. Putin likely intended to invoke similar memories of Soviet sacrifice and full-scale social and economic mobilization.[26] ISW previously assessed that Putin’s decision to appoint Andrei Belousov as Russian Defense Minister was a significant development in his efforts to mobilize Russia’s economy for a protracted war effort against Ukraine and possibly prepare for a future confrontation with NATO, and Putin will likely continue various informational and rhetorical efforts to prepare Russian society for greater economic mobilization if he intends to pursue such an unpopular policy of further economic and social mobilization in the mid- to long-term.[27]

Belarus suspended its participation in the Cold War-era Conventional Armed Forces (CFE) in Europe Treaty on May 28.[28] The Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claimed that Belarus would resume its implementation of the CFE Treaty if NATO member countries also implement the CFE Treaty.[29] Russia withdrew from the CFE Treaty in 2023, and Belarus’ and Russia’s respective suspension and withdrawal from the treaty are likely part of ongoing attempts to deter the West from providing military aid to Ukraine and from allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons to strike military targets in Russia.[30] Russian officials criticized Moldova’s suspension of the CFE Treaty in March 2024 and claimed that it was against Russian interests.[31] Russian officials notably did not criticize Belarus for suspending the CFE Treaty, and Kremlin newswire TASS claimed that Belarus had “made every effort” to preserve the CFE treaty, although it is unclear what efforts TASS is referring to.[32]

Key Takeaways:

  • Advisor to the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Mykhaylo Podolyak stated that US-provided military aid has started arriving on the frontline but that it will take “weeks” for the gradual increase in US-provided military aid to reach “critical volumes.
  • Sweden announced its 16th and largest military aid package to Ukraine, worth 13.3 billion kronor (about $1.25 billion), on May 29.
  • Western officials are increasingly suggesting that they support Ukraine’s right to use Western-provided weapons to strike military targets in Russia.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed Russian Presidential Aide Alexei Dyumin as Secretary of Russia’s State Council on May 29.
  • Russia blamed Ukraine for the recent several-month-long suspension of prisoner of war (POW) exchanges over the backdrop of reports of pervasive Russian abuses against Ukrainian POWs.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin continues his efforts to prepare the Russian population for a protracted war effort.
  • Belarus suspended its participation in the Cold War-era Conventional Armed Forces (CFE) in Europe Treaty on May 28.
  • Russian forces recently advanced north and northeast of Kharkiv City, near Kreminna, Chasiv Yar, and Avdiivka.
  • Russia continues efforts to expand social benefits for Russian military personnel, veterans of the war in Ukraine, and their families.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.