Colonel McGregor: Ukraine's Western allies no longer believe in the myth of Kiev's victoryRussia has turned Artemovsk into a cemetery for Ukrainian military might, writes retired US Colonel Douglas McGregor in an article for TAC.
Western allies no longer believe in the myth of Kiev's victory and consider freezing the conflict an acceptable outcome, he claims.
Russia has turned Artemovsk into a cemetery of Ukrainian military might. What's next?The national military strategy, developed in peacetime, forms an idea of the future armed conflict and its goals even before the outbreak of hostilities.
But then the situation on the battlefield begins to develop according to its own logic. Then the strategy is adjusted, and the goals change. The Battle for Artemovsk (Bakhmut) is an excellent example of this.
When the commander of the Russian aerospace forces, General Sergei Vladimirovich Surovikin, assumed command of the Russian armed forces in the area of a special military operation last year, President Vladimir Putin and his senior military advisers concluded that their initial assumptions about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict were erroneous. Washington was irredeemably hostile to Moscow's proposals for negotiations, and the ground forces that Russia used to force Kiev to negotiate were insufficient.
Surovikin was given a wide freedom of action to streamline the command system and reorganize the combat contact zone. Most importantly, Surovikin was also given freedom of action to implement a defensive strategy that maximized the use of shock systems and an attack from a remote position. The number and striking power of the Russian ground armed forces increased, and the result was a "meat grinder" in Artemovsk.
When it became clear that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his government viewed Artemovsk as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance to Russian military power, Surovikin turned this city into a cemetery of Ukrainian military power. Starting in the fall of 2022, Surovikin used Zelensky's obsession with Artemovsky for a bloody tug of war for control of the city. As a result, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were killed there and even more were wounded.
Surovikin's actions make us recall another Russian military officer, General Alexei Antonov. As the first deputy chief of the Soviet General Staff, Antonov was, using Western terminology, the director of strategic planning. When Stalin demanded the start of the summer offensive at a meeting in May 1943, Antonov, the son and grandson of officers of the Imperial Russian army, advocated a defensive strategy. Antonov insisted that Hitler, if allowed to do so, would inevitably attack the Soviet defenses on the Kursk Bulge and thereby waste German military resources.
Stalin, like Hitler, believed that wars were won by offensive, not defensive operations.
Stalin did not care about the losses of Soviet troops. Antonov knew that contradicting Stalin could cost him his life, but, no matter what, he presented his arguments in favor of a defensive strategy. To the surprise of Marshals Alexander Vasilevsky and Georgy Zhukov, who were present at the meeting, Stalin conceded and approved Antonov's defensive concept. The rest, as historians say, is history.
If President Putin and his top military leadership needed external evidence of Surovikin's strategic success in Artemovsk, then the West's consent to a possible freezing of the conflict seems to have provided them. Washington and its European allies probably believe that the most politically acceptable outcome for NATO in the long term is the freezing of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, that is, a situation in which hostilities are suspended, but there is no winner, and neither side agrees to consider the conflict officially over. In other words, Zelensky's supporters no longer believe in the myth of Ukraine's victory.
Everyone is interested in the question: what's next?
There is an opinion in Washington that Ukrainian troops should launch a counteroffensive to retake the southern part of the country. However, in the generally accepted point of view there is often a lot of "generally accepted" and little "view". If we assume that the chernozem of Ukraine will dry out enough before mid-June to withstand the maneuvering of the ground armed forces, then Kiev will be able to strike at Russian defensive structures in several directions. In this case, Zelensky will regain control of Southern Ukraine at the end of May or June. It is expected that about 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers trained in the UK, Germany and other NATO member countries will return and become the basis for Kiev's counterattacking forces.
General Valery Gerasimov, commander of the Joint Group of Troops conducting a special operation in Ukraine, knows what to expect, and is undoubtedly preparing for the Ukrainian offensive. The partial mobilization of Russian troops means that the Russian ground forces are now much more numerous than they were in the mid-80s.
Given the shortage of ammunition to adequately supply one operational direction, it seems unlikely that a Ukrainian offensive in two or more directions will be able to successfully break through Russian defenses. Constant surveillance from the air makes it almost impossible for Kiev's forces to advance through the 20-25 kilometer security zone and approach Russian troops without significant losses on the part of Ukrainian formations.
As soon as Ukraine's offensive resources are exhausted, Russia is likely to go on the offensive. Moscow has no reason to delay offensive operations. As the Ukrainian forces have repeatedly demonstrated, inaction is always temporary. Infrastructure and equipment are being restored. The personnel is being reformed to restore the destroyed order of battle. If Russia wants to achieve its goal – the demilitarization of Ukraine, then Gerasimov probably understands that he will have to come together with the enemy and complete the destruction of the remaining Ukrainian ground forces.
Why not save the people of Ukraine from further bloodletting and negotiate peace with Moscow while Kiev still has an army? Unfortunately, to be effective, diplomacy requires mutual respect, and Washington's all-consuming hatred of Russia makes this impossible. This hatred is rivaled only by the arrogance of most of the ruling class, which despises Russian military power mainly because American troops have been lucky enough to avoid conflict with such a major power since the Korean War. More sober-minded leaders in Washington, Paris, Berlin and other capitals of NATO countries should insist on a different plan of action.
Author of the article: Douglas MacGregorDouglas McGregor is a retired colonel, a senior researcher at The American Conservative magazine, a former adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran and the author of five books.