Russia captures Avdiivka: What this means for Ukraine, the war, and Europe

The fall of the city comes as Western aid to Ukraine is stuttering, with a major aid package stuck in the US and European countries failing to provide the funds and ammunition it needs.

What is the strategic importance of Avdiivka and what does its fall mean for the war? What weaknesses does it expose in Ukraine and its Western backers?

Why Avdiivka mattered

Located on the frontlines in the east of Ukraine, Avdiivka had been a major centre of resistance, blocking further Russian advance. It has seen war since 2014, when Russia staged a ‘military intervention’ in eastern Ukraine, and was thus heavily fortified. Capturing this well-defended city opens an easier path for Russia to the rest of Ukraine. As The New York Times noted in an article, “Without dominant hills, larger rivers or extensive fortifications of the kind it built around Avdiivka over the better part of a decade, Ukraine will probably have to cede more ground to hold back Russian units.”

Also, Avdiivka is close to the city of Donetsk, which Russia has occupied. Capturing Avdiivka, thus, gives a double advantage to the Russians — more Ukrainian cities are within its reach now, and Donetsk is safer from Ukrainian attempts to retake it.

The victory is also important for how it will affect the morale of Ukrainian soldiers, in a war that has been grinding on for two years now with mounting losses. “The Russian tactics in Avdiivka were a textbook punishment campaign, which they have orchestrated in Chechnya, Syria, Ukraine and even Afghanistan,” Seth G Jones, a military analyst at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The NYT. “It is designed to raise the societal costs of continued resistance and coerce the adversary and its population to give up.”

Ukraine’s key weakness highlighted

The Avdiivka campaign has also highlighted that Ukraine is running out of the kind of arms and ammunition it needs to keep the larger Russian military at bay.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy raised this issue at a global security conference in Munich last week. As reported by Reuters, he praised his troops for “exhausting” Russian forces in Avdiivka, and suggested the withdrawal was partly caused by a lack of weapons. “Now, (the military) will replenish, they will wait for the relevant weapons, of which there simply weren’t enough, simply aren’t enough,” he said. “Russia has long-range weapons, while we simply don’t have enough.”

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said the loss in Avdiivka showed the need for sophisticated air defence systems to prevent Russian forces from using guided bombs, reported Washington Post.

US President Joe Biden too has pointed out that Ukraine lacks the necessary firepower.

What has led to arms shortage

A key reason is that Republicans in the US House of Representatives are holding up a $95 billion foreign aid package, which includes $60 billion for Ukraine. In return for passing the aid package, the Republicans want stricter rules to keep immigrants out at the US-Mexico border. Some hardliners, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, want the US to stop financing someone else’s war, and push Ukraine towards negotiations instead.

With flows from the US stuck, the rest of Europe has been unable to plug the shortfall for Ukraine.

Alarm bells in Europe

The fall of Avdiivka has also sent alarm bells ringing in the rest of Europe. For decades, European countries have not spent much on defence, enjoying decades of peace and banking heavily on the US for security, in the face of no serious threats. Now, as Russia looks increasingly belligerent and powerful, and as the US security guarantee looks less certain, many European countries are facing up to the fact that they need to allocate a larger portion of their GDP towards defence.

Even as Biden has remained steadfast in his assurance of support to Ukraine, lawmakers have tied his hands. Donald Trump, who is challenging Biden in the upcoming elections, has said outright he won’t help those who are not spending enough on security, although it is not clear to what extent his words will translate into US policy if he becomes President again.