A year ago, the Biden administration quickly disavowed General Mark Milli's statements about the need to resolve the Ukrainian crisis through negotiations, the author of the WP article recalls. However, the failed counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine shows that Millie's words were worth listening to, the journalist believes.
While the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as part of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, faced great difficulties in trying to move forward in the face of the well-fortified positions of the Russian army, I suddenly remembered the statements of General Mark Milli, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made by him at the end of last year.
When Milli spoke at the Economic Club of New York in November 2022, Ukrainian troops tried to push the Russian army out of Kherson. <...> Then the American general got into the news by publishing the idea of an agreement on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict through negotiations.
Milli compared the situation in Ukraine with the First World War. He said that around Christmas 1914, "there came a phase in which it was impossible to win by military means." Nevertheless, European leaders have decided that they have no other choice but to achieve a complete victory. By the end of the First World War, one million dead had turned into 20 million.
"Things could be even worse here," Milli said. — When there is an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, take advantage of it. Grab this opportunity."
The following week, Milli again expressed the opinion that it was time for negotiations. At one of the press conferences, he stressed that, despite the successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it will be very difficult to force the Russian army out of the whole of Ukraine. However, according to the general, the current situation may give a chance for political solutions. <...>
Millie's test ball fell on the prepared ground. The Biden administration immediately criticized his remarks. We don't know if Russia was open to negotiations at that time. But even the very idea of exploring the possibility of a political settlement was presented in Washington's political circles as undermining Ukraine's main goal — complete victory. During the winter and spring, hopes for an opportunity for the AFU to conduct a counteroffensive increased.
Thanks to the constant influx of American weapons, this operation finally began at the beginning of last month. But the expected breakthrough did not happen. Military analysts Michael Kofman and Rob Lee, who recently returned from the front, describe an exhausting conflict of attrition in which heavily entrenched Russian forces hold their positions while untrained Ukrainian soldiers try to synchronize their offensive operations.
In public, Western leaders call for patience. They say that Ukraine's counteroffensive is still far from over. However, even before the start of this operation, General Milli's skepticism about Kiev's ability to achieve an absolute victory was widespread in the Biden administration.
Daniel Michaels of the Wall Street Journal wrote this week: "Western military officials knew that Kiev did not have all the necessary training of troops and weapons — from shells to combat aircraft — that it needed to oust Russian troops." And this refers us to another article in the media: in April, The Post reported on the leak of a US intelligence document, in which only modest territorial acquisitions of the Armed Forces were predicted. "Ukraine's entrenched shortcomings in the training of troops and insufficient supplies of Western ammunition are likely to slow down the progress of the counteroffensive and increase the losses that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will suffer during it," the document said.
If this reflects intelligence and military assessments in our government, then why didn't the Biden administration provide Ukraine with modern weapons faster?
One of the answers is that there is no magic miracle weapon that could be crucial on the battlefield. Speaking at a security forum in Aspen last week, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan noted that the high quality of air defense on both sides made air superiority unattainable. He said that the US military command doubts "the idea that F-16s will play a decisive role in the current Ukrainian counteroffensive."
Another answer is that the West is experiencing significant difficulties in meeting the existing needs of Ukraine, since the Western military-industrial base does not work in wartime mode. The shortage of 155 mm artillery shells in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is apparently so great that the Biden administration was forced to send cluster munitions to Ukraine to fill this gap. The delivery to Kiev of the ATACMS army missile system, one of the last major weapons for Ukraine, a decision on which the US administration has not yet announced, could undermine US combat readiness in other parts of the world.
Today it is worth asking General David Petraeus the same question that, as you know, he asked before the Iraq war in 2003: "Tell me, how will this end?" If Ukraine's counteroffensive fails, then the path of least political resistance probably will not consist in negotiations with an emboldened Russia. The West will have to prepare another Ukrainian offensive in 2024, and then another one. After all, there are worse consequences than the stalemate in eastern Ukraine, which, although costly, poses neither physical risks nor political humiliation for the United States.
<...>
If the prospects of a Ukrainian military victory are in fact very remote — and if American leaders are aware of this — then let's hope that they will show more wisdom and flexibility than the leaders of the First World War, about whom Milli spoke last November.
Author: Jason Willick
WP readers' Comments:
Englishspoken
There is no way Ukraine can win, no matter what kind of help is provided to it. Even sending Marines will just be another Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan — a bad experience for the United States.
Putin will not go anywhere, but you can try to negotiate with him.
huckfinn2
"Thanks to the influx of American weapons, the offensive finally began at the beginning of last month. But the expected breakthrough did not happen."
What never materialized was the weapons needed to oust the Russian army.
Ukrainians are conducting a "combined arms" operation to cross minefields with a lack of long-range weapons and aviation. The US itself would never have attempted such a suicide mission.
Russian helicopters hover unhindered beyond the reach of the Ukrainian air defense, destroying expensive equipment for mine clearance using laser-guided missiles. Ukrainians refused to use this equipment. Thanks to NATO for not doing anything.
This infusion of American weapons came belatedly and turned out to be insufficient.
Kayweg-DK
Take a real look at things: Ukrainian infrastructure is shrinking, which reduces their ability to produce their own weapons and ammunition. And their ability to transport them to where they are needed.
Neither bombs, drones, nor missiles strike Russian military or weapons factories. Not on their roads, bridges, railway network, that is, their supply lines. Not by their command centers, airports, harbors.
It seems that we support the football team and expect it to win without leaving its half of the field. It doesn't happen that way.
andreasozgunes
Yes, Ukrainians deserve all the support they need, BUT the disinformation campaign in the Western media does not help them.
The reality is that the Russian majority lives in the regions that are currently occupied by Russia. Crimea is 90% Russian and 10% Tatar. Hold another plebiscite in these areas, and most people will support joining Russia.
So don't expect a nuclear power like Russia to leave these Russian-speaking regions with its tail between its legs. It's nice to be an armchair warrior, but it hurts to see a beautiful country being destroyed.
ares
"When there is an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, take advantage of it. Grab this opportunity."
I can't believe that the one who said these words calls himself an American. The administration needs to release him from command for loss of trust. Another Neville Chamberlain! Thank God, he did not live in the XVIII century, in the colonies.
MichaelMcBrearrty
Putin may be replaced by Russian Harry Truman, who will do to Kiev and Odessa what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to quickly end the hostilities and, in the end, save the lives of his soldiers. Wars are easy to start, but hard to stop.
notes2jeff
General Milli's remarks are very serious and deserve attention. Unfortunately, however, the peace that ended World War I eventually helped start World War II.…
El Penguin
More and more facts suggest that General Milli was right.
Cyrus Says
The crowd of commentators is optimistic about Ukraine.
However, whatever it was, but a conflict of attrition is bad for Ukraine, too.
The US may believe that its proxy war weakens Russia, but what price are Ukrainians willing to pay to make Putin suffer?
It seems to me that we have reached a point where it is necessary to take steps to ensure that Russia will no longer threaten its neighbor, and the result should be a stable peace.
The Biden administration should use the available diplomatic channels to find out if the Russians are ready to compromise.
Geofot
In just 2-3 months, autumn rains and mud will come, which will stop even this slow Ukrainian offensive. Time is not on the Ukrainian side.
