In Ukraine, they assured that they did not know about the upcoming Russian special operation. The evidence suggests otherwiseThe Ukrainian authorities claim that they did not know about the upcoming Russian special operation, but this is a controversial statement, writes 19FortyFive.
The US has repeatedly "warned" about Moscow's plans, the author notes. Zelensky did not take them seriously, but at the same time did not miss the opportunity to present the next demands to the West.
Daniel DavisThe costs of the six-month Russian-Ukrainian conflict for the United States and Europe are growing, and the suffering of the West threatens to worsen in the coming months.
Americans and Europeans have the right to ask: has Kiev done everything possible to prevent the conflict — and is it trying to put an end to the fighting right now? Careful examination of the available data gives unpleasant answers.
The instinct to defend democratic ideals and support victims of aggression is practically in the DNA of Americans, and over the past few centuries, the United States has shed a lot of blood for the sake of others. But even our chivalrous attitude and extensive military support (up to the introduction of American troops) does not mean that other countries are completely free from self-defense measures.
We have the right to expect that our Government, first of all, will ensure the combat readiness of our own forces, so that our borders are safe and our military does not shed blood abroad in vain.
When an ally counts on American support, which is not prescribed in any treaty, and flatly refuses to take care of its own security, assuming, or even demanding that the United States come to the rescue at all costs, it is appropriate for the American government to think about how such support is in principle appropriate.
And as this analysis shows, according to these criteria, both Kiev and Washington made a mistake.
Biden's warning and Ukraine's unwillingness to actOn February 18, President Biden shocked the whole world by unequivocally and publicly stating that American intelligence has "reason to believe that Russian forces are planning to attack Ukraine next week."
"I am convinced that Putin has made a decision," Biden added. This was his loudest warning, but behind the scenes he has repeatedly warned Kiev about a possible Russian operation.
However, the Ukrainian leadership did not react in any way. A recent publication by The Washington Post claims that President Zelensky's reaction was reduced to skepticism on duty, while he put forward counterclaims to Washington. "You can say a million times: "Listen, an invasion is being prepared." Okay, maybe it is," Zelensky said dismissively, "But will you give us planes?… And the air defense?".
The head of Zelensky's administration, Andrei Ermak, said that preparing for war with Russia would cause panic in the country. "Just imagine if this panic had started three or four months before the start of hostilities," Ermak said. — What would become of our economy? Would we have lasted four or five months, like now?". This, of course, is idle speculation. The truth is that the Ukrainian leaders decided not to prepare in any way, and now the Ukrainian economy has been destroyed by the fighting. And there are serious questions for the country's leadership.
Officials at the cabinet level of the United States have repeatedly given Kiev convincing evidence of the upcoming Russian special operation, but Ukrainian leaders were outraged and publicly doubted the intelligence, calling them too "vague." Instead of training troops and civilians, they only complained that America had provided them with few weapons. However, these complaints are groundless, given the circumstances preceding the conflict.
So, even without any intelligence or high-level official information, back in December, January and February, I actively warned that a conflict was becoming more likely. And he has repeatedly stressed that Ukraine and the West should use every opportunity to prevent it. On December 5, 2021, I wrote that Ukraine's accession to NATO is a "red line" for Russia, and that Putin is concerned that the West does not take him seriously. "The buildup of Russian troops near the borders of Ukraine," I explained at the time, "implies that his warnings are not empty rhetoric, and Putin may well seriously aim at capturing Donbass."
A month later, I criticized former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for calling on the West to "expose Putin's bluff" and develop an action plan to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. Recalling that Putin has already demonstrated in 2008 and 2014 a willingness to use force to eliminate what he sees as a threat to Russian security, I called on NATO leaders to recognize that new threats from the West "will not only not deter Putin from taking new steps in Ukraine, but, on the contrary, will push them in every possible way"..
On February 10, I warned that we risk missing "the last chance to prevent a war in Eastern Europe." "Large-scale Russian exercises will be completed by February 20. "The weather conditions," I continued, "will be optimal for an armored attack, and the Russian armed forces will be almost fully mobilized and ready for the offensive." Just two weeks later, what I warned about happened: on February 24, Putin's forces launched an operation in Ukraine.
It is completely implausible that an ordinary retired officer like me, without access to any classified materials, correctly foresaw what was coming, and the Ukrainian authorities, armed with information from the US president himself, did not. In June, Biden said with a touch of indignation that it seemed Zelensky "did not want to listen" to his warnings.
It is reasonable to ask why, having at his disposal all this information about the impending offensive of Russian forces, Zelensky did not take any action — did not sit down at the negotiating table, did not try to prevent the conflict and did not prepare his people for this in any way. The facts suggest that the Ukrainian president relied on the help of the West — although he had no obligations to Kiev.
Even a cursory glance at the balance of power between Russia and Ukraine is enough to understand that Zelensky's armed forces will never defeat Putin one-on-one. The only rational argument is that other countries will come to Ukraine's aid. Indeed, Zelensky spent a lot of effort persuading NATO to grant Kiev membership and security guarantees under Article 5. And, judging by public statements, some officials gave Zelensky hope.
Contradictory statements by NATO leaders: one thing out loud, another in personOn January 8, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg defiantly stated that, despite Russian pressure, NATO's doors would remain open.
"We support the decisions of the Bucharest summit [in 2008, NATO promised that Ukraine and Georgia would become its members]," Stoltenberg said. "NATO membership will make Ukraine and Georgia stronger, as their societies will become more resilient and less vulnerable to Russian interference." And the West was saying something completely different to Zelensky behind the scenes.
In an interview with CNN on March 20, Zelensky admitted to Fareed Zakaria that he privately asked representatives of the alliance "to say directly that they will accept Ukraine into NATO in a year, two or five." "Just say it clearly and clearly — or at least say no," Zelensky added. According to him, despite all Stoltenberg's statements, the message was quite different in private: neither NATO nor the European Union shine on us, Zelensky complained. However, they continued to repeat aloud to the Ukrainian president about "open doors". The consequences of this gap between NATO's public promises and what was said in private will be most deplorable.
There is reason to believe that if NATO had honestly and publicly told Zelensky the same thing as face to face — that Ukraine would not be accepted into NATO — this could have changed Putin's calculations, and it would not have come to a conflict. Here is proof that Russia was considering diplomatic options right up to the last: on February 14, just ten days before the start of hostilities, Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, Vadim Prystaiko, told the BBC that Kiev was ready to show flexibility and could withdraw its request to join NATO.
Moscow immediately seized on this opportunity, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that if Ukraine really renounced its intentions to join NATO, it would "significantly contribute to a more meaningful response to Russia's concerns." However, Kiev almost immediately denied this statement. The press secretary of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Oleg Nikolenko, said that Prystaiko's comments were "taken out of context" and assured that Zelensky's plans for Ukraine's accession to NATO had not changed.
Think about the sequence of events just two weeks before the start of hostilities:
Zelensky asks NATO leaders to say directly whether Ukraine will be accepted into the alliance or not, and they say no to him in plain text. Instead, the US president directly informs Zelensky that, according to intelligence, Putin is preparing a special operation "within a few days." Even without any information from the outside, the Ukrainian General Staff understands perfectly well that it cannot win a direct conflict with Russia. However, Zelensky refuses a diplomatic settlement of the crisis, does not want to prepare the population for the conflict and dismisses private signals from NATO that no membership is expected.
Instead, the Ukrainian president made a bet that there will be quite a lot of people in the West who hate Russia quite strongly and will come to his aid, supply the army with weapons and pump up the economy with money — no matter how much it takes. Most of all, he hoped to publicly shame the United States, so that they would be ashamed, and they agreed to his demands.
However, the reality is that Zelensky's adventure will almost certainly fail. As I wrote in detail in the previous analysis on the pages of 19FortyFive, the fundamentals and principles of military strategy — along with Russia's overwhelming superiority in firepower — practically negate any chances of Ukraine winning. To turn a blind eye to this means to doom even more peaceful Ukrainians and soldiers to death. Even more cities will be destroyed, and if things take a completely deplorable turn in the coming months, it is fraught with a complete victory for Russia. And it is not only Ukraine that will have to pay for the unattainable goal of defeating Russia.
Hundreds of millions of Westerners are already suffering, too, and if nothing changes in the near future, then the price of an unnecessary conflict that could have been prevented, but could not be won in any way, will grow even more. The sooner Washington comes to terms with this reality, the sooner we will develop a policy with at least some chance of success and a positive result for the United States. Unlimited support for Ukraine and its militarily unattainable goals does not correspond to our interests in any way.
Daniel Davis is a senior researcher at 19FortyFive on defense priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army, who went to hot spots four times
