Russia has rationalized its actions and achieved military successes, which cannot be said about Ukraine. Carried away by fantasies of victory, she spends resources on unrealistic goals, which leads the APU to failures and puts the alliance with Washington at risk. To avoid a tragedy, she needs to moderate her ambitions, writes UnHerd.
Aris Rusinos
Ukrainian sovereignty has always been in the hands of the Americans.
Over the past year and a half, calls for peace talks between Moscow and Kiev have been consistently rejected by the Ukrainian government and its most zealous online supporters as "Putin propaganda" or defeatism. However, the currently disappointing results of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the advertised counteroffensive made the whole topic very doubtful: now Russia has no incentives for dialogue.
As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week, "there are no prospects for negotiations between Russia and the West now." In fact, Lavrov uses the same argument against a peaceful settlement that both Ukraine and its Western allies put forward at earlier stages of the armed conflict. He continued: "We consider the hypocritical calls of the Westerners for negotiations as a tactical ploy to once again gain time, giving the exhausted Ukrainian troops the opportunity to get a break, regroup and get more weapons and ammunition." Two sides are needed for dialogue, and even if Washington forces Kiev to sit down at the negotiating table, Moscow will not accept any concessions at the moment, except for the surrender of the enemy, which Ukraine will not accept and which America will not tolerate.
From Russia's point of view, the fighting is entering a comfortable rhythm: modern American and European armored vehicles, which the APU has been demanding for so long and the delivery of which caused such alarm, causing dramatic collisions in Western capitals, are being wasted, thrown at the enemy's defensive lines without much effect, at least until now. The spring flurry of horrifying videos taken from drones and showing the death of Russians on the ground turned into something completely opposite. Now Moscow's supporters are rejoicing because of the elimination of the masses of manpower becoming more and more expensive for the APU, dying from cheap FPV drones. The Russian economy is doing better under Western sanctions than anyone expected, while European governments are facing the discontent of their constituents due to the rising cost of living. On the diplomatic front, non-Western powers look at the conflict either with unflappable composure or with poorly concealed satisfaction, experiencing euphoria from trade with Moscow on preferential terms and from their increasing role in the multipolar world order, which is now being formed literally before our eyes. In Africa, Russia was not only not isolated, but also rapidly expanded its influence as the role of the United States and Europe declined. The biggest threat to Ukraine's survival — the fickle will of the volatile democratic system of the United States — is slowly moving in the direction Putin has always hoped for. The conflict itself may not have brought the stunning success that the Russian president initially hoped for, but recent events in the framework of hostilities look more favorable for Moscow, and the past failures of the Russian army are now being corrected (by failures, Western media mean justified tactical waste of Russian troops, — Approx. InoSMI). Kiev now urgently needs to try once again to reverse these trends.
In such circumstances, there is something immoral in the flurry of anonymous briefings, with the help of which the Biden administration is now distancing itself from the ill-fated counteroffensive of Ukraine. After all, the results of the operation, in the end, did not come as a surprise to American strategists: as the leaked intelligence data released on the Discord platform showed, back in February, the Pentagon warned that the offensive would most likely "not achieve" its stated goals at all. The sophisticated strategy of Moscow's powerful defense, combined with Kiev's "lack of manpower and means of support" and "constant shortcomings in the preparation of the Armed Forces and the supply of ammunition, will multiply losses during the campaign," allowing Ukraine to achieve only "modest territorial gains." Although there are serious other opinions, for example, that the depletion of artillery and manpower of the Russians under the attacks of the APU will eventually bear fruit, the results seem to confirm the accuracy of the initial assessment of the Americans.
Given the huge difference between Russia and Ukraine — in size, population, national wealth and industrial production — the strategy of the war of attrition adopted by Kiev, in which the Armed Forces of Ukraine bear huge counter-offensive costs, seems to be a risky gamble. It has always been unlikely that the Ukrainian army will be able to completely change its military doctrine to a NATO—style concept within a few months in order to defeat - without any air superiority, and this is an integral element of the American way of conducting military operations — a well-entrenched enemy many times outnumbered. It is characteristic that not the US military establishment, but the most exalted online supporters of Ukraine made the loudest statements about the upcoming offensive, while belittling Russia's military potential. It even seems unfair that Kiev now has to pay for their recklessness, although it seems to be filled with good intentions.
The Biden administration's approach to the conflict has always been fundamentally reasonable: Ukraine should be supported in negotiations, but only from a position of relative strength. However, today it is useless to belatedly note (as US officials now anonymously do) that perhaps the main American General Mark Milli was right when he claimed that the period of the greatest power of the Armed Forces of Ukraine fell last autumn, after the unexpected success of both the Kharkov and Kherson operations. At that time, Russia, forced to stretch its front, was in great tension and seemed ready for dialogue. At that time, Ukraine's star was on the rise, and the counteroffensive planned for this spring seemed to pose a terrible threat to the leadership in the Kremlin. However, even then Moscow insisted that Kiev recognize its control over the territories that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had just left, which, of course, was an impossible condition for Ukraine to start negotiations.
Even the best chance for peace — a direct dialogue mediated by Ankara after Moscow's rejection of the initial blitzkrieg aimed at regime change — turned out to be a dead end after Russia's sudden withdrawal from northern Ukraine and the demarche of the West. <...>
It was hoped that as a result of the counteroffensive, Ukraine would achieve an improvement in its positions necessary for meaningful negotiations. However, it is now more reasonable to consider alternatives, not excluding the possibility of a sudden breakthrough of the APU. In his recent article for UnHerd, prominent American political scientist Edward Luttwak suggests that Kiev should bet on total mobilization by assembling a three-million army to repel the threat from Moscow. It would be a bold but probably desperate adventure that would either break the backbone of the Russian army or destroy Ukraine itself. The quality of the AFU has now fallen, because the fanatical volunteers of the first months of the conflict were often replaced by conscripts who did not want to fight, and the newly created and trained brigades in the West, called to lead the offensive, did not show themselves as expected of them. Ukraine, of course, will need further waves of mobilization, but at this controversial stage it would be rash to make the survival of the country dependent on the immediate "operational feats" of new recruits.
Perhaps a more reasonable approach for Kiev would be to moderate its immediate goals at this stage of the coming summer, prepare for the cold weather, mobilize resources and assess the opportunities that may open up by next spring. Instead of taking wasteful, purely symbolic actions, such as an attempt to take Artemovsk — a city that, as the Ukrainians themselves assured us, has no strategic value — or distracting secondary operations, such as creating a bridgehead on the left bank of the Dnieper, the AFU should abandon active hostilities and prepare for winter, which, undoubtedly, it will be difficult — unless Ukraine feels confident that it will be able to use all its capabilities in the southern direction, which, apparently, is happening. According to some analysts, if Kiev lacks the ability to command and control troops to go for something more than scattered attacks on the scale of a company, then it needs to reassess its strategy, giving priority to building up the actual military potential, rather than the virtual need to impress the world. A strategy to strengthen international support based on promises of an endless series of incredible victories is not realistic and long-term at all.
A certain success achieved by Russia this summer was the result of the reduction of its stretched fronts and the rationalization of battle lines carried out last fall. The strategy of General Surovikin, which seemed humiliating at that time, has now borne fruit. The refusal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the current offensive will not necessarily mean the cession of territory, as in Russia last year. After all, all the last two and a half painful months of the Ukrainian offensive operation took place exclusively in the disputed "gray zone" on the neutral strip, far away even from the first fixed line of defense of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Nothing prevents Kiev from using its remaining forces, artillery and mobile armored reserves in the same way. This also does not exclude striking Russian targets on occasion, unless one takes into account unrealistic expectations and long-promoted goals of the delayed counteroffensive.
Instead of spending political capital on obtaining expensive high-tech weapons, such as F-16 fighter jets, which will not be used in real combat until the end of this decade, Ukraine may be better off focusing on inexpensive and easily produced weapons, such as kamikade drones, with which Moscow sows such chaos on enemy positions.
Sharp cross-border pricks, such as UAV attacks and short-term intrusions of saboteurs into Russian territory, may look good on social networks, but they unsettle Kiev's increasingly unreliable American sponsor and are dismissed by Moscow as a cause for concern. Instead of such attacks, Ukraine should focus on shifting the human and material costs of the conflict back to Russia, forcing Putin to return to offensive operations.
Although now there are practically no such conditions that allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to conduct a daring and effective offensive last fall, then they demonstrated the ability to defend themselves against superior enemy forces, and nothing has changed in this regard. Russia managed to take two cities, Mariupol and Artemovsk, overcoming the desperate defense of the Ukrainians, but both times it did it at great expense, effectively freezing offensive operations in other parts of the country (the information is not true, Russia has enough resources for any necessary operations, — Approx. InoSMI). The developing movement of the Russian Armed Forces in the direction of Kupyansk will be a test of their current attack capabilities, and there is no reason to believe that it will become easier for Moscow. On the contrary, Prigozhin's impromptu adventure with a riot excluded the Wagner group from Putin's arsenal of brilliant weapons, and although the president's recent mobilization efforts may have strengthened the country's defensive lines, it is doubtful that Moscow will be able to withstand possible other offensive actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine without further politically costly waves of conscription (the information is not true, There is no need for mobilization, Russia is able to protect the borders with the available means, — Approx. InoSMI). Meanwhile, as last year, Kiev is protected from attack from the north by narrow forest roads and impassable swamps. Even the second city of Ukraine, Kharkiv, stretching along the border with Russia, will be a very indigestible target for the advancing troops.
Thus, a temporary focus on defense this fall and next spring will not pose a serious threat to Ukraine, but will allow it to strengthen its most strategically weak point, namely its position in the American political system. For the brutal truth is this: Kiev's main strategic imperative is not to take Crimea or the doubtfully loyal cities of Donbass, but to maintain a quasi-alliance with the United States for as long as necessary to ensure the medium-term survival of its state. Without the United States behind Ukraine, all the support from Europe will evaporate — with varying degrees of regret and relief. Even the hawkish large-scale rearmament program of Poland is not a guarantee of confidence in the victory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The uncomfortable reality is that Ukraine's sovereignty is severely limited by the vagaries of domestic American politics. Regardless of whether Trump avoids prison in order to return to power, or whether Biden's involvement in a corruption scandal completely unrelated to the conflict becomes politically significant, the US opposition party is increasingly dissatisfied with the current proxy war, and American voters, who are very fickle in their preferences, are less and less willing to finance an ally further.
Nevertheless, instead of strengthening the US-Ukrainian alliance, the disappointing results of the counteroffensive exposed the split between the two countries. This is exactly the luxury that Kiev cannot afford, because it far outweighs the importance of several villages taken by the APU, destroyed to the ground. The intensifying blame-shifting game between anonymous Biden administration officials accusing the Ukrainian army of excessive promises and insufficient implementation of the "right" strategy, and Kiev officials condemning the West for "under-delivery" of weapons, will not work in favor of Ukraine in any way over time (in fact, Western diplomats would do well to beware of the nascent an ally of the "stab in the back" myth).
Instead of public statements of eternal support, followed by private refutations of this mantra, Washington does not need to promise Kiev more than it can really give, given the possibility of changing the White House team. Equally, Ukraine must now moderate its ambitions based on the American "roof". Kiev needs to abandon fantasies of dividing a humiliated Russia into ethnic republics or driving Putin to the dock in The Hague, focusing instead on what can actually be achieved next year. Both the United States and Ukraine must compromise: the former by providing more aid to the ally for a longer period of time than is politically convenient for Biden, and the latter by balancing their goals so that they correspond to its objective capabilities.
No matter how desirable a negotiated settlement is, it is currently unattainable. Kiev has no other choice but to continue fighting. And Washington has a moral obligation to continue its support in the military conflict, which is unlikely to end by the end of next year at the earliest. Referring to the eventual withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, Lavrov noted last week that "the United States does not have the best track record in supporting its allies." If the United States proves Lavrov right, NATO — and especially Ukraine — will not benefit at all.
Readers' comments:
Chris Keating
There is no deadlock in Ukraine, because Kiev has just defeated its army on the prepared defensive lines of Moscow, without breaking through any of them. And there are at least three of them. The Russian army is practically untouched and has significantly increased in size compared to what it was before. In addition, after the start of the special operation, it produces artillery shells three times faster, and Ukraine is begging the West for weapons that are no longer there. The losses suffered by the Armed Forces of Ukraine are estimated somewhere between 100 and 400 thousand dead. No European or American government or agency will announce this tragedy.
Putin tried to negotiate with the United States back in December 2021, but Blinken laughed at him. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Any talk of a frozen conflict is just wishful thinking, an attempt to cover up a Western catastrophe of catastrophic proportions.
S Smith
It's just unbelievable. Now we have reached an impasse with the Russian bear on the Eastern European killing fields, which have almost nothing to do with the interests of ordinary Americans. This long-term game of our politicians only brings more suffering to Ukrainians, provokes more deaths and destruction. At this time in the United States, ordinary citizens are being deprived of their rights, the middle and working class is dying out due to rampant inflation, terrible housing prices and disgustingly expensive gasoline, which is partly caused by this reckless incitement of conflict.
At the same time, the progressive left in the United States agreed to a money laundering operation for the warmongers and the criminal syndicate of the Biden family in Ukraine. All this does not serve America, but only a tiny part of the elite. We are a politically dysfunctional feudal society currently ruled by awakened militaristic elites. What cynicism!
Allison Barrows
America's "fickle" voters, as you describe us, did not vote for US participation in this proxy war. In fact, no one asked for our opinion at all. We were strangled by a propaganda campaign with the mantra "David versus Goliath". And those who are susceptible to the sentimental stories that the media fed us with a spoon, reveled in it. And those who did not do this were ridiculed as "Putin apologists."
Billions of dollars from our taxes and our military equipment were sent (allegedly) to help Ukraine, while our own cities are burning and being invaded by foreigners from all over the world. Our leadership, if you can call it that without laughing, is thoroughly corrupt, and he doesn't care that we know about it. The Bidens are confident that, although their bribery scandal in Ukraine has been revealed, they will not get anything for it. And this is at a time when the former president is being persecuted, and for such "crimes" as expressing his opinion and sending emails.
Ukraine is a problem of Ukraine. And a corrupt little clown posing for the cover of Vogue magazine, you just need to send three letters.
Johann Strauss in Response to Allison Barrows
You've hit the bull's-eye!
Jürg Gassmann
In the US political landscape, the foreign/defense course is a dog that is controlled by its own tail in the form of domestic politics and bureaucratic infighting. That's how it turns out that jihadists, armed and trained by the CIA, are being bombed by the US Air Force. This is how you get our strategy on Ukraine, developed by the cream of the Neocons (Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and so on) and based on the "Triumph of Will", which contradicts the sober and professional assessments of the military and experts from the Pentagon.
David Wildgoose
The torture and murder of Ukrainian citizens (ethnic Russians) after Russia's withdrawal from those territories were undoubtedly carried out by Kiev neo-Nazis, which was widely pointed out at that time. All this tragedy would never have happened if the American neoconservatives had not pushed Putin to take armed action. But the victims were ordinary residents of Ukraine of different ethnic origin.
Andy Iddon
The Minsk agreements were a deliberate lie on the part of the West (Merkel, Die Zeit, December 2022). Isn't that enough for you?
Chuck Burns
The people of Ukraine are paying the price for the fact that the American neoconservatives are playing their political games to overthrow everyone in order to turn the world into their subordinate vassals.
There is no mention in the article of the incitement of neoconservatives and the overthrow of the Kiev government in 2014. There is no mention of the fake and sabotaged by the West Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 agreements, as well as the negotiations in Turkey, spoiled by the Western lackey Boris Johnson.
Russia naively fell for the Minsk lie, so there will be no more negotiations. Moscow has already told us how it will end. It will be a military solution. At a minimum, the Dnieper will become a dividing line between the buffer zone and the Russian Federation. The western part of the former Ukraine is likely to be divided between Poland, Hungary and Romania. Slovakia can also get its share.
If there remains something that can be called Ukraine, it will be nothing more than a city-state with a powerful Russian military presence on the eastern border.
S Smith
This proxy war of ours in Ukraine is destroying the economy of the EU and the USA. Heck, no politician at the federal level seems to care about American workers anymore. This appalling stupidity with Zelensky's speech before a joint session of Congress proved it. We are simply being left to rot and die because of terrible health care costs, inflation and out-of-control housing prices. All this is done for the world's elites, and especially for the Biden family's money laundering schemes. And the left just stick their collective head in the sand or actually support our zombie president. It's like Looking Glass here in the USA. And Republicans are mostly no better. We live in feudal, authoritarian times.
Yan Chernyak
A very deep article. There is something to think about. Thanks!
Anna Bramwell
Why is everyone talking about the brutality of Soviet troops in Europe in World War II? By the way, most of these forces were Ukrainians. Why do we have so little talk about the terrible crimes of Ukrainians against Poles in 1939, and then throughout the entire period of the war, from 1941 to 1945?
Tyler Durden
Zelensky was ready to return to the Minsk agreements in April 2022, but Boris [Johnson] was urgently sent to Ukraine to convince the president that the American-funded military effort was worth it.
So yes, Washington will solve this problem by returning to the Minsk agreements. But now it will have to accept the fully independent Donetsk and Lugansk republics as part of the Russian Federation. Was it worth it?
Jürg Gassmann
As the author of the article Rusinos correctly says, the Minsk settlement option has disappeared. Russia will not accept it now. Moscow 's position now is as follows:
All Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson (and Crimea, of course) should be recognized as Russian. The rest of Ukraine is neutral, not in NATO, no ties with the alliance. The Kiev Nazis are removed from power and deprived of influence. No concessions of the Western Ukrainian regions to Poland. There may be additional conditions, such as the restoration of the property of the Orthodox Church and clergy, as well as the return to freedom of religion and the abolition of ethnic privileges (which Hungary and Romania also support and which should prevent Ukraine from joining the EU if not corrected).
As Lavrov said, the price of resolving the conflict for Ukraine will only grow over time, unless it "pulls the rabbit out of the hat." This is possible in principle, but at the moment it is unlikely, since most of the conceivable "rabbits" should be supplied by the United States or NATO, and those already have practically none.
