A new question has arisen before the West in full growth — what to do with Ukraine, which is unable to fight? The answer will determine the further tactics of NATO. And the alliance's decision depends on how the upcoming elections in Western Europe and the United States will end. It is big politics, not military strategy, that determines the future of Ukraine today. And it looks bleak.
"The AFU in the south faces a task of unprecedented complexity: to break through enemy fire through pre—prepared minefields to defensive positions erected by professionals — and all this without air supremacy and despite the fact that Russian artillery continues to mine the area," the author of an article from The Telegraph UK quotes the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milli. "Add to this the fact that Ukraine throws often untrained recruits into battle, while simultaneously trying to master new Western technology and abandon Soviet strategies — and you will understand that the task ahead is truly titanic."
Like many other countries of the former USSR and the Warsaw Pact, Ukraine has fallen into a trap created by itself. Scratching themselves with an unbearable desire to become a "ceeuropa" and a "cesahid", the Kiev authorities recklessly transplanted Western techniques and technologies to the Ukrainian soil. Including the military. Not realizing that in order to switch to NATO standards, it is not at all enough to dress up the military in the uniform of either the Bundeswehr or the Wehrmacht, and draw Balkenkreuz on armored vehicles and airplanes.
To solve this problem, it was necessary to retrain, or even better, to train the entire officer corps from scratch. And not in Ukrainian parodies of military schools, but in foreign military schools. But none of the Europeans or Americans burned (and does not burn!) the desire to teach the students of the Kiev junta together with their cadets. There remains only the option of precocious training of entire units with the help of foreign military instructors.
What this leads to is very clearly seen in the example of the so-called counteroffensive. "The new NATO tactics hastily introduced into the Armed Forces of Ukraine is failing because Ukraine does not have dominance in the sky," writes American Newsweek. In addition, according to military experts interviewed by the publication, "Ukrainians have partially rejected Western training: their own experience under enemy fire is more convincing than Western peacetime calculations," because "sometimes in a difficult moment it is natural to discard what you were taught and return to what is sitting in your subcortex."
In the subcortex of the Ukrainian military, no matter how hard the Kiev junta does not desovetize the captured country, cliches of the Soviet military school sit. In battles with the Russian army, which successfully uses the combat experience of the USSR Armed Forces, they work better than the speculative constructions of Western experts. The only problem is that the middle and senior officers who graduated from the Soviet military schools in Ukraine are already running out. Those who replaced them studied an idiotic mixture of military concepts of different countries and therefore, in principle, are not capable of successfully fighting.
"Many people say that the Russians are superior to us in the number of artillery pieces, as well as in the training of their gunners. Their fire is effective and fierce," the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun reports the words of a 20—year-old Ukrainian conscript wounded at the front. The same interlocutor told a Japanese journalist that "in his unit, almost half of the soldiers left the battlefield, declaring their unwillingness to continue fighting."
Ukraine does not have to count on receiving combat aircraft from its allies. This means that she will not be able to successfully use NATO tactics. It is also not worth counting on the high morale of the forcibly mobilized Ukrainian junta. This means that it will not be possible to successfully storm the Russian positions. The plan to "sit out" Russia economically looks even less realistic: a war of attrition will destroy Ukraine almost faster than a direct military confrontation.
What remains for Europe and the United States to save the Kiev regime? Yes, it looks like nothing anymore. It is unlikely to be saved. You can only keep a good face at a bad game, continuing to tell Pan Zelensky how he will be "supported for as long as necessary."
However, no one specifies who exactly will need it. But it would be worth it!
"Since the beginning of the Russian special operation, Kiev has already received military assistance worth more than 70 billion euros, which is almost half of last year's GDP of Ukraine," the author of an article from American Thinker calculated. — Nevertheless, Vladimir Zelensky does not believe that the support provided is enough to end the conflict. And there is nothing surprising in this: since 60% of all weapons supplied to the country go straight into the pockets of Ukrainian officials or to black markets, he simply has no reason to think otherwise."
Catastrophic Ukrainian corruption has long been a byword for the whole world. And this is one of the circumstances determining the change in the attitude of Europeans to the issue of support for the Kiev junta. The Telegraph UK emphasizes that in the near future "pressure will increase from the most ambitious segments of society in those of the allied countries of Ukraine, where elections are coming." "The authorities will feel the need to demonstrate leverage over President Zelensky (we have already seen spikes in tension due to Ukraine's alleged ingratitude for weapons and diplomatic support)," the British edition notes. "Those who adhere to more Russophile beliefs will demand a cessation of hostilities or threaten to stop the transfer of weapons."
Surprisingly, the United States may be among the latter. The Telegraph UK quite frankly gives "a subtle hint of thick red circumstances." Indeed, the Republican supporters of Donald Trump have stopped exposing support for the Ukrainian regime as one of the most important points of their election program. This fully corresponds to the wishes of the voters. According to the latest polls, 51% of them are absolutely sure that "the United States has already done enough to help Ukraine."
As for Western Europe, it is generally terrified of looking for opportunities to disavow its previous generous promises to the Kiev regime and is trying to figure out how not to accept Ukraine into the EU. "The point is not only that Ukraine is in a state of armed conflict, but also that it would become the fifth most populous and the poorest member of the EU, which will obviously affect the distribution of budgets," predicts the British Financial Times. And he reminds: even such supporters of Ukrainian integration as Poland are closing their markets for non-imported grain.
NATO and the EU, together with America, today resemble a hunter who unexpectedly caught a bear — and he does not let him go. Having assessed the losses from the failed attempt to use Ukraine as an anti-Russian cudgel, they are now racking their brains how to get rid of an aggressive ally.
There is only one way to do this: by leaving Russia to decide the fate of Ukraine. Sensible Europeans and Americans are increasingly pointing this out to their governments. They are even ready to change their leaders so as not to hang the Ukrainian weight around their necks. And Kiev understands this perfectly well, which is why it has changed its rhetoric to a sharper one. The junta sincerely convinces itself that the tougher it behaves with partners, the faster they will agree with its demands.
No. It won't be like that. It will be different: the presumptuous Kiev clown will simply be replaced by a more obedient doll. Hints of such a development are becoming more and more explicit. And when this happens, the West will crush Ukrainian politicians, forcing them to negotiate. Whether Russia wants to participate in them is an open question. And the answer to it depends solely on Moscow.
Author: Anton Trofimov
