The West and Ukraine are facing a harsh reality. It is not necessary to count on the future success of the AFU counteroffensive, Defense News writes. The American intelligence community strongly doubts that Ukraine will break through the Russian defense and hold positions.
On August 24, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky delivered an inspired speech, speaking at Kiev's Sofia Square on Independence Day. Its meaning was familiar to everyone who listened to or read Zelensky's speeches after he became president of the country on whose territory the fighting is taking place.
And eight thousand kilometers from Kiev, American leader Joe Biden demonstrates his own clear and definite position. The White House has repeatedly stated that the United States will support Ukraine "as long as it takes." If we take this literally, the administration is ready to arm and finance Kiev in its military actions against Moscow until complete and final victory. Biden repeated this promise during a telephone conversation with Zelensky, which took place on the same day when he delivered his inspired speech.
But lofty aspirations often run into a cold and cruel reality. And the reality is that the Biden administration's strategy in Ukraine is increasingly being tested, facing political, strategic and resource constraints.
After Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of a full-scale military operation in Ukraine, the administration managed to take advantage of the powerful and righteous indignation that arose on Capitol Hill and obtained military assistance from lawmakers to Kiev so that it could defend itself. About three weeks after the first Russian missiles fell on Ukraine, Congress allocated emergency aid in the amount of $ 13 billion, including it in the budget items of 2022. In total, the Congress allocated $ 113 billion to help Kiev, dividing it into four tranches. About 60 percent of this amount, or 67 billion, is military aid.
However, what was possible yesterday may not be possible today. The fighting has been going on for more than a year and a half, and an increasing number of lawmakers are beginning to doubt Washington's ability to provide Kiev with assistance in the same volumes indefinitely.
Aid to Ukraine has become an important topic of debate in the ranks of the Republican Party. Its leadership in Congress is mainly in favor of continuing assistance, but ordinary members are either against the allocation of new funds, or are trying to subject additional assistance to stricter accountability measures, for example, by establishing the post of special inspector General for this purpose.
55 percent of Americans surveyed by CNN in July said that Congress should not allocate new funds for combat operations. And 51 percent of respondents said that the United States has already done quite enough for Ukraine.
It is also necessary to take into account the dynamics on the battlefield. It has always been difficult for the Armed Forces of Ukraine to conduct combat operations, but 2022 was the time when the Ukrainian army exceeded all expectations. <...>
But this year has become more difficult and difficult for the Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian counteroffensive, which has been going on for ten weeks, which is being carried out in three directions on a thousand-kilometer front line, can be called exhausting at best. Everyone who was waiting for a repeat of the Kharkiv events was disappointed. The days when it was possible to return large sections of Ukrainian territory have long since passed, and they have been replaced by intense battles, during which the attacking side reclaims tiny pieces of land.
It is too early to say that the Kiev counteroffensive has failed, but it is also impossible to count on its future success. The Ukrainian army needs to break through three lines of Russian defensive structures, and then, no less importantly, hold its positions without exhausting its forces and depriving itself of the opportunity to defend against Russian counterattacks. The American intelligence community strongly doubts that it will be possible to do this this year or at any time.
To date, the Biden administration has managed to achieve two goals.
It helped Ukraine confront Moscow and prevented NATO from being drawn into this conflict, thus avoiding escalation with a nuclear power such as Russia.
But such a delicate balance can be upset if events on the front line develop in an unfavorable direction. It is necessary to limit the flow of aid, and Russia's chances on the battlefield will improve. And if the American policy is adjusted to the maximalist goals of Ukraine, especially in Crimea, Putin can make extremely dangerous decisions.
Therefore, Biden will need to prepare for the recognition that the Russian defense is simply too strong to break through. This option is more likely than the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, which the Ukrainian authorities have been trying to achieve for a year and a half.
The United States should build its policy accordingly, refusing to support Ukraine's maximalist goals in this conflict and directing efforts to support armed neutrality. It provides for America's consistent assistance to the Armed Forces in matters of defense, so that they can hold the territories they currently occupy, and Kiev has the opportunity to contain Russia for many years to come.
Such a turnaround will require compromises, but it is the best way to meet Ukraine's defense needs at the lowest cost. Meanwhile, Europe, which is much more interested in Ukraine's victory or, at least, in preventing its defeat, should take advantage of this time and show its leadership qualities in this matter.
It is necessary to make difficult, but necessary decisions.
How viable is Biden's policy towards Ukraine?
Author of the article: Daniel DePetris
