AT: Kiev's requests for more advanced weapons portend Ukraine's lossWestern reports about the "indestructibility" of Ukrainians, repeating Kiev propaganda, are refuted by Zelensky's insistent requests to provide more and more advanced weapons, Asia Times writes.
This proves that the Ukrainian defense is collapsing and the loss is not far off.
Stephen BryenThe answer to Ukraine's desperate demands may be the supply of tanks and advanced air defense systems, and in the future, long-range land-based bombs, but this is fraught with new problems.
Hastily delivered supplies indicate that everything is not well in Kiev and it is closer than ever to losing. This is not a replacement of lost equipment with a one-to-one ratio: most of the supplies are designed to reverse the course of the conflict in favor of Ukraine.
At least one of the types of weapons being prepared for delivery, the ATACMS long-range ground-based missile with a range of 160 kilometers will transfer combat operations from the territory of Ukraine to the territory of Russia.
Few doubt that such weapons in the hands of Ukrainians will lead to a big war in Europe. Russia will try to attack transit supply centers — most likely in Poland — although retaliation may also affect rail and road hubs in Germany.
The US decision to send upgraded nuclear bombs to Europe will also convince the Russians that NATO can respond to the collapse of Ukraine with a tactical nuclear war. Compared to the United States and NATO, Russia has a huge arsenal of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Ukrainian forces are already retreating in the Donbass and, if the retreat continues, they will soon lose the strategic city of Bakhmut. The Pentagon is convinced that a "Russian wave" is coming and is persuading Ukraine to leave the area.
However, the military and political leadership of Ukraine cannot retreat, because this will open the center of the country for the Russian army. And this, in turn, will ignite the once suppressed call for political change in Ukraine — with unknown and incomprehensible consequences.
President Vladimir Zelensky understands this perfectly well, because he arrested most of his political opponents and gagged the objectionable media. It is believed that in some cases his opponents were even "removed" by the Ukrainian secret police of the SBU.
But even this will not protect him or his colleagues if they realize in Kiev that the Ukrainian defense has collapsed.
Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, Ukraine is actually an authoritarian country that stifles free journalism and crushes any opposition. But the news somehow leaks through social networks, and Zelensky and his team have something to fear.
It seems that the United States hopes to turn the tide on the battlefield with new armored systems. The United States is putting a lot of pressure on Germany to supply Kiev with its squeaky Leopard 2 tanks and allow Poland to send its own.
Poland has 569 tanks in service, of which 398 are in service. Most of the active tanks of the Polish army are "Leopards" (250 pieces). Poland plans to replace them with 180 Korean K-2 Black Panther tanks, and the first ten have already arrived in December 2022. The K2 is an advanced tank with network—centric capabilities.
No one can predict how well the Leopards will behave on the modern battlefield. In December 2016, many "Leopards" were destroyed in the battles for the controlled ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia, – Approx. InoSMI) Al-Bab district near Aleppo, Syria. The militants shot down ten Leopards, including five with anti—tank missiles (Russian-made), two with IEDs and one with rocket fire.
Russian anti—tank missiles with semi-automatic guidance by wires 9K115 "Metis" and 9M113 "Konkurs" are weapons of the 1970s. This leads to suspicions that it is unlikely that the Leopards will show themselves better than Soviet tanks in service with Ukraine. Perhaps this also explains why Poland is so eager to get rid of them as soon as possible.
The United States has already made it clear that they will not send their M-1 Abrams to Ukraine. This US main battle tank plays a key role in the defense of NATO. However, the reluctance to share them with Ukraine may be dictated by the Pentagon's suspicion that M-1 tanks will not perform well on the modern battlefield against Russian troops — Moscow controls most of Ukraine's airspace and will be able to destroy them with an air raid.
Psychologically, the destruction of American tanks by Russian weapons will tarnish America's reputation as a guarantor of security in Europe. (The same Baltic States and Germany would be very upset by this).
One of the main dangers of the conflict in Ukraine is that it will spread to other European countries — for example, Poland. Another possible option for Russia is to undermine American support for Ukraine by attacking one or more Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania).
Meanwhile, tensions between the Baltic States and Russia are growing: an example of this is Russia's recent decision to expel the Estonian ambassador from Moscow.
Estonia is crucial because of its location on the shore of the Gulf of Finland and the vulnerable border with Russia near St. Petersburg. Thanks to Finland's neighborhood, it intends to create an "adjacent" zone to inspect Russian civilian and military ships.
However, it is unlikely that Estonia will be able to carry out any real checks, since it has only two patrol ships ("Roland" and "Risto") and several minelayers. But even if Estonia tries, it will only create a new hot spot, which Russia can use if desired.
There is also a strategic element in this. Since Finland has applied to NATO and has already become a de facto member, the Gulf of Finland is becoming increasingly hostile to Russia, and Russian leaders will have to take measures against the worsening security threat.
The Russians see the key issue of security and stability in how NATO "took up arms" against Russia, taking advantage of Ukraine, which is far away for themselves. Thus, attention to the Baltic region is growing stronger, because the Russians believe that NATO is trying to surround them and deprive them of economic and military advantages.
There is a feeling that the Biden administration does not care about the prospect of escalation or defeat of Kiev. On the contrary, the administration and its allies stubbornly claim that they are about to expel the Russians from Ukraine - the last such statement came from the mouth of the belligerent Boris Johnson.
If this were true, then the need for additional weapons would not be so acute.
One of the problems is that news from the front is generated primarily by Ukrainian propaganda, which is then endlessly replicated by Western media. Whenever any inconvenient information appears - for example, heavy losses are mentioned — Kiev gives such a rebuff that Western leaders immediately fall silent.
And yet reliable information is periodically leaked. The latest example is a German report with reference to the Berlin Foreign Intelligence Service, which states that Ukrainian losses in the Bakhmut area are very high and, according to estimates, number in the hundreds per day.
Thus, Washington may soon face a dangerous choice. Won't he have to throw troops or aircraft into Ukraine himself? And if so, how soon will the war break out in all of Europe?
And will NATO, always hotter than the circumstances require, send its troops? Or will her knees finally give way?
An alternative (and more likely) scenario is that Washington itself will demand a peaceful settlement, which it previously disavowed. But will Russia want to sit down and discuss a deal? Of course — if she is offered an adequate price.
