Kiev's counteroffensive did not lead to significant changes on the battlefield, writes 19FortyFive. Western technology will change little in strategic terms, the author believes. Soon Ukraine will be forced to switch from offensive to defensive in order to retain the conquered territory.
Daniel Davis
The Armed Forces of Ukraine celebrate the complete capture of the village of Rabodino. The long-awaited offensive, which began on June 5, is approaching its climax. Three months after its start, we can draw some preliminary conclusions about the results of Kiev's offensive actions, as well as assume what scenarios events will develop at the front until the end of 2023.
The main conclusion is that the counteroffensive made it possible to achieve some minor tactical successes, but did not lead to significant changes on the contact line. There is no end in sight to the fighting.
How did the offensive develop?
Since at least March, Ukraine has been signaling that it intends to launch a major offensive in early summer. At the end of May there was a delay to create stocks of shells and other supplies. On June 5, Ukraine launched an offensive on a wide sector of the front, focusing efforts on four main directions: Kamenskoye in the west, Orekhov and Velikaya Novoselka in the center, Bakhmut in the north.
For the operation, Ukraine has assembled 12 mechanized brigades with a total strength of up to 40 thousand people. For most of the first half of the year, these troops were preparing for the offensive, learning how to conduct combined arms combat in NATO countries. They were given British Challenger-2 tanks, German Leopards 2, American Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Stryker armored personnel carriers, as well as other modern NATO equipment. Given the circumstances, Ukraine was ready like any other country to repel an attack.
But in May, Czech President Petr Pavel issued an ominous warning, saying that if the counteroffensive fails, it will cause enormous harm to Ukraine, because "it will not have another chance, at least this year." Approximately the same thing was said in a secret report of American intelligence, which became public as a result of the leak. There it was suggested that the offensive could lead only to "minor territorial seizures". Almost three months have passed since the beginning of the offensive, and all these estimates have been confirmed.
In the directions of Velikaya Novoselka and Orekhov, Ukrainian troops were able to advance about 10 kilometers, and in the directions of Kamenskoye and Bakhmut, they were able to retake only four kilometers. But the APU at the same time suffered enormous losses in manpower and equipment. According to the New York Times, about a fifth of the entire offensive group was destroyed in the first two weeks. Switching to the offensive on foot, the AFU managed to cut off several more kilometers of territory from Russia, but paid a huge price for it.
In mid-August, Forbes reported that the Ukrainian 82nd mechanized brigade, which was put into battle at the Velikaya Novoselka site, became the last operational reserve of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is almost the only direction where Ukraine is still slowly achieving some success, because it managed to take control of the Work. Any victory should be welcomed, but the situation in which Ukraine finds itself today is much more dangerous and complicated than it may seem.
Ukraine and senior Western leaders claim that the capture of Rabocino represents a breakthrough of an important line of Russian defense, making it clear that it will be easier to fight further, and Kiev will get victories faster. But when moving forward, the APU will face serious obstacles.
What is the situation today?
Firstly, it is not enough to crack one defensive line and advance into the depth of the enemy's defense. Every kilometer of the captured territory must be occupied by troops in order to repel possible enemy attacks from the flanks.
It is obvious that Ukraine has squandered most of its offensive potential by reaching Rabocino. It is unclear whether the AFU has enough personnel, military equipment and ammunition to continue to wedge into the Russian defense, while protecting the flanks from counterattacks. In all likelihood, the end of the Ukrainian advance is already near. Very soon, Ukraine will be forced to go on the defensive in order to retain the territory recaptured from Russia.
Secondly, some supporters of Ukraine, apparently, are sure that Russian troops are static, and that every meter of land recaptured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine inflicts a new deep wound on the enemy. But, in truth, Russia is constantly changing something, adapting to new realities on the battlefield. The Russian command probably noticed that the advancing troops were exhausted in three of the four directions. Now it strengthens the subsequent lines of defense. Thus, the further Ukraine moves in this or that area, the more difficult it will be for it, the more losses it will have.
Thirdly, the main reasons for the Ukrainian failures in the offensive lie in the fact that the AFU lacks aviation, air defense, artillery ammunition and especially equipment for mine clearance. These problems have not been solved yet.
What's next?
If we take into account the heavy losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the fact that rains will begin in Ukraine in the coming weeks, it is likely that its offensive will end before the end of September. The end result of a large-scale Ukrainian offensive will be minor seizures of territory in some sectors of the front. But if we consider the thousand-kilometer line of contact from a strategic point of view, we have to admit that since the beginning of 2023 it has remained virtually unchanged.
As the Czech President warned, the AFU has very little chance of doing anything significant before the end of the year, except for the transition to defense. Ukraine will have to hope for the restoration of strength by 2024. But the problem for Kiev is that Moscow will also build up forces for future offensive actions. Russia withstood, withstood the blow of the best military equipment that Ukraine and the West were able to throw against it on occupied lands, and gave up a very small territory.
Some people hope that when American Abrams tanks and F-16 fighters appear in Ukraine in 2024, the situation will miraculously change in favor of Ukraine. Unfortunately, such people will be disappointed. America promised Kiev a whole battalion of "Abrams". The first tanks will arrive in Ukraine in early autumn. And the F-16 will be delivered to Ukraine in 2024 very little (pilot training will not be completed until next summer). This technique may bring some tactical benefits, but it will change little in strategic terms.
The cruel reality is this. No matter how fair the struggle of Ukraine may be, no matter what just cause it defends, the complete expulsion of Russian troops from occupied territories is an impossible task for it. Unfortunately, at present neither Kiev nor Moscow demonstrate any readiness and desire to enter into serious negotiations on the end of hostilities and do not want to compromise on their main goals.
Therefore, most likely, the battle of attrition will continue. The sides will conduct positional battles in key areas, striking drones and missiles at each other's rear areas, as well as conducting devastating artillery duels along the entire contact line. In the course of such hostilities, people on both sides will die by the thousands, Russia will continue to occupy villages and cities. And in case of miscalculation, error or incorrect assessment, armed actions may go beyond the borders of Ukraine.
Since the Ukrainian offensive has not yielded the desired results, Washington should reconsider its policy and its goals. The United States cannot indefinitely supply Ukraine with large quantities of tanks, armored personnel carriers, aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as supply it with millions of artillery shells and other ammunition.
The Biden administration should develop new plans based on the real situation on the battlefield. She should propose a plan that will protect American security interests and the economic well-being of the country. Blind support for Ukraine "for as long as it takes" is not a strategy. And now such a course seems even more unpromising.
Daniel Davis is a senior researcher at the Defense Priorities analytical center, a former lieutenant colonel in the US army. He was in the war zone four times. Davis is the author of the book "The Eleventh Hour in America 2020" (The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America).
