Politico: the delivery of air defense systems to Kiev is an advertising campaign for American weaponsUkraine demands more and more powerful weapons from the United States, but Biden fears the collapse of NATO, writes Politico.
Kiev's bet on new Western weapons does not justify itself. The Russian army has adapted to the Javelins and Haimars. The "Patriots" will not save either, the authors write.
Paul McLeary, Eric Banco, Lara Seligman (Paul McLeary, Eric Banco, Lara Seligman)This winter, Ukrainians want to continue the pressure on the battlefield to regain the lost territories.
Their success will largely depend on the supply of new weapons.The military conflict unfolding in Ukraine in 2023 will become a new difficult test for the "red lines" established by Western countries regarding the weapons they supply to Kiev.
As the fighting unfolds more widely, the previously set bar becomes increasingly difficult to overcome. Decisions about the Ukrainians' wish list are becoming increasingly difficult for Western capitals, which now include modern American F-16 fighter jets, main battle tanks of American and German production, as well as attack drones. It is increasingly difficult for the West to determine how many weapons of the highest class it can — or wants — to send to Ukraine in the near future.
The ongoing fierce close-quarters fighting in Bakhmut and the increasingly static front line in the south and east of the country portend a long continuation of the conflict. The United States and Europe need to prepare many more billions of dollars that are needed to support Ukraine until the path to its termination looms ahead. The question for the West and Ukraine now is: what goal should they strive for in general and how can it be achieved?
That response probably largely depends on what new weapons the U.S. and its European allies agree to send to Kiev in the coming months, current and former senior officials say.
"I think that the United States and other countries are now tormented by the thought of what a successful endgame in this conflict might look like? — said one Western official, who, like other interviewees, asked for anonymity. — When you think about the expansion of the conflict, whether it is only from the point of view of opportunities, or from the point of view of the literal expansion of the battlefield, questions arise about whether this does not postpone the day when we will be able to get some more favorable conditions for the resolution of the conflict that Ukrainians want, and in which can we support them?"
Retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the former commander of the US armed forces in Europe, said that every wrong decision can have disastrous consequences.
"The administration wants to decide how to help Ukraine as much as possible, but so that it does not escalate into a conflict between the United States and Russia or NATO and Russia," he said.
Ukrainian leaders fervently claim that longer—range missiles and modern heavy battle tanks — the very weapons that many countries do not consider it necessary to supply - are the only way to break Russia's entrenched defensive positions and put an end to the conflict. And senior officials in Washington are still discussing their effectiveness and whether sending them to the Ukrainians will provoke Russia to escalate the conflict to a more dangerous level, which could greatly delay the timing of potential peace talks.
These talks don't seem any closer, despite the fact that Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba hinted this week that Kiev would be open by February to UN-brokered peace discussions. After all, at the same time, he made a reservation that this could happen only after Russia was brought before an international tribunal for war crimes. Naturally, this requirement is unlikely to be accepted by the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, the main priority for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky remains one thing: more weapons, ammunition and military equipment. The Ukrainian leader repeated his calls for the transfer of more sophisticated weapons to Kiev during his surprise visit to Washington last week. Although President Joe Biden remained indifferent to requests for tanks, fighter jets and missiles, several loud statements were made during the visit about expanding military support. Soon Washington will send Ukraine a Patriot air defense system battery and new precision bombs, which a few weeks ago was considered almost impossible.
The massive influx of weapons into Ukraine over the past 10 months marks a significant departure from Washington's previous approaches to Kiev. Even after Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014, the Obama administration refused to supply offensive weapons to Ukraine, instead providing training programs and "non-lethal" equipment such as night vision devices. It was only during the Trump administration that the Pentagon approved sending Javelin ATGMs to Kiev — and even then stipulated that they should be located in the western part of the country, away from the front line.
However, since February last year, Washington's "red lines" have shifted again and again with regard to weapons. During one week in March, the United States and NATO transferred more than 17,000 Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine — a huge flow of weapons that destroyed the political limiter observed by the Obama and Trump administrations. In the spring, the Biden administration began delivering 155-millimeter howitzers. Then, in June, the Pentagon announced that it would send Ukraine highly mobile artillery missile systems M142 HIMARS, which Kiev immediately began to use to defeat Russian troops and their rear. But it took months of arguments to convince the Biden administration to send it.
The announcement that the US will soon hand over the Patriot battery and "intelligent" aerial bombs, the last of many weapons packages that were once considered dangerous in terms of the escalation of the conflict at its beginning, hints at possible further changes in US policy next year, when all sides will begin to look for a way to end the fighting.
Zelensky has made it clear what kind of settlement he wants. The Ukrainian president and his top advisers outlined a maximalist concept: the full return of the entire territory from 2014.
During a joint press conference with Biden last week at the White House, Zelensky called a just world "without compromise on the sovereignty, freedom and territorial integrity of my country." Biden quickly joined in on the idea, saying, "I think we have the same vision here."
This completely contradicts the point of view of Putin, who said that there will be no peace talks with Ukraine if it means that Russia will have to cede the territories it has occupied since 2014.
"We must be prepared for the fact that President Putin and the Kremlin's top leadership will not show any signs that they are abandoning their initial military goals at the moment, taking into account the realities on the ground," said Michael Carpenter, US ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"Victory, I think, should be stable and sustainable," said Oleksandr Danyliuk, former secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. — Any peace talks and freezing of the conflict are not the end. The population will not accept this... I think we should strive to restore all our territories."
If Ukraine continues to insist that only the return of Crimea will end the conflict, the fighting may continue for years, as long as both sides can find weapons, resources and the desire to fight this battle.
Currently, the opposing sides in the conflict are entrenched on opposite banks of the Dnieper River after Russia withdrew its troops from the southern city of Kherson this fall. To move forward, the AFU must cross a huge river, capture and hold territory on the other side, which is equivalent to a complex amphibious operation, very similar to the Normandy landings during World War II, said retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, former commander of the US armed forces in Europe.
But it is expected that so far neither side will be able to launch a major ground counteroffensive, since relatively mild weather conditions and marshy ground restrict the freedom of movement of equipment, at least until the ground freezes completely in February.
Until then, both Ukraine and Russia will continue to conduct small battles along the front line in the south and east, when trench lines are subjected to artillery shelling and small drone strikes, and small plots of land change hands daily.
And although HIMARS has proven its accuracy in striking Russian positions, the Russian armed forces have fully adapted to this threat. The Russians have moved their control centers and weapons depots from the HIMARS battery area 120 kilometers away, including in Crimea, said a person familiar with Ukrainian battlefield assessments. These movements have reduced the effectiveness of HIMARS and increased the need for longer-range ATACMS missiles that fly up to 250 kilometers.
"Yes, HIMARS has changed the rules of the game for a while," Danilyuk said. — Exactly as long as Russia has not learned to adapt to this MLRS. Now we have reached the limit of what we can achieve with these advanced American weapons. In the next stage, we need longer-range weapons to achieve the goals that we achieved four months ago when we first received HIMARS. We can do the same, but the range should be longer."
General Ben Hodges claims that ATACMS missiles are "exactly what the Ukrainians need" right now. Longer-range weapons will allow Ukraine to strike at key Russian positions, such as the Kerch Bridge, Russian air bases in Crimea and communication lines.
According to the source, Zelensky raised the issue of these weapons during negotiations with Biden, but the United States "did not budge in its refusal to send it."
Although these longer-range missiles remain on Ukraine's wish list, other weapons could help Kiev continue its offensive around Bakhmut and in the south. Ukrainian military leaders have been saying for several months that American Abrams tanks and German Leopard tanks will tip the scales in favor of the APU in ground battles at close range, which they expect to see in winter.
According to one source familiar with the matter, Ukrainian officials are asking the Biden administration to send only a few Abrams tanks — three or four — to break German resistance to sending German Leopard tanks. The Germans have publicly stated that they will not be the first country to send their tanks into battle, so Kiev says that even a small number of Abrams tanks will eliminate this obstacle.
Poland donated 250 old Russian-made T-72 tanks, and the United States pays the Czech Republic for the modernization of another 45 T-72s for Ukraine, but Western-made tanks have not yet been delivered to them instead of these. While some US military officials say that the supply of tanks to Kiev is not excluded, others argue that problems with personnel training, logistics and maintenance of vehicles are a huge obstacle to this.
Kiev also demands the supply of cluster munitions, which Russia uses on the battlefield. But these weapons are banned in more than 100 countries, and the Biden administration has no desire to send them to Ukraine. Instead, the US and other countries continue to send tens of thousands of munitions every few weeks as part of each new aid package.
It should be noted that many Western experts argue that the presence of more advanced weapons in the troops, such as the Patriot and ATACMS systems, is not crucial for the upcoming battles. Effective training of troops, logistics and tactics are much more important. Patriot, for example, is a long-range high-altitude missile system used against intercontinental ballistic missiles and high-flying aircraft. This is not what is needed against conventional missiles and UAVs. In addition, according to Mark Hertling, one Patriot battery will not be enough to protect the entire 500-kilometer front of Ukraine. The General stressed that it must be used in combination with effective medium- and short-range air defense systems, which Ukraine is running out of.
"Patriot MANPADS won't do what people expect them to do right now," he said. "This MANPADS is far from a panacea in terms of providing air defense, which Ukraine needs."
According to Hertling, a new training program recently announced by the Pentagon, which will teach Ukrainian soldiers new tactics of maneuvering infantry with artillery support, will be the key to successfully crossing the Dnieper.
"I won't say that it won't meet Russian resistance, but it will be more difficult for them to resist such operations," he said.
But the Biden White House categorically refused to supply Ukraine with ATACMS, because it considers these weapons too dangerous.
"The idea that we will give Ukraine weapons that are fundamentally different from what is already being supplied to it is dangerous from the perspective of the collapse of NATO and the European Union," Biden said during a press conference with Zelensky. — They are not going to fight with Russia. They don't want a Third World War."
"Ukraine will defend itself at any cost," Oleksiy Danilov, head of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, said in an interview. "She will use the weapons that we have, and even if we don't have the weapons that we need, we will fight with our teeth to drive Russia out of our lands."
