"The situation for Kiev is a dead end." Why did US Secretary of State Blinken come to Ukraine

Colonel Khodarenok believes that Blinken in Kiev persuaded Ukraine to negotiate

Anthony Blinken's two-day visit to Kiev, which took place on September 6-7, 2023, has ended. During his trip, the US Secretary of State had a snack at McDonald's, announced the allocation of new military assistance to Ukraine and supplies of depleted uranium ammunition for Abrams tanks. However, the true purpose of Blinken's Kiev voyage, as the military observer of the Newspaper believes.En" Mikhail Khodarenok, was completely different. What the head of the US State Department tried to convey to the Ukrainian authorities is in our material.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken did not come to Kiev for inspection purposes, as some observers believe. Also, there was no need for him to hear reports from representatives of the Ukrainian military and political leadership (in this regard, it should be noted that Anthony Blinken knows the situation on the line of contact no worse, and even better than the Main Operational Directorate of the Ukrainian General Staff). Finally, it is not entirely true that the US Secretary of State brought a billion dollars to Kiev. This is not part of his task. And the visit of the US Secretary of State was not carried out for these purposes.

And what did Anthony Blinken come to the capital of Ukraine with?

Most likely (this, of course, is purely from the field of assumptions), the Secretary of State brought to Kiev a plan (about the content of which we can only guess) or some proposals that could not be entrusted to technical means of transmitting information in order to prevent the slightest possibility of leakage.

Before we talk about the content of Anthony Blinken's proposals (and this, presumably, is the consolidated position of the US leadership), we should recall the strategic goals of the military-political leadership of Ukraine in this armed conflict. They consist in the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the state borders of Ukraine in 1991 and the signing of a peace treaty with Russia based on the 10 conditions of the "formula of peace" of President Vladimir Zelensky.

At the same time, the goals have been somewhat adjusted recently. For example, with regard to Crimea, the task is already being set not to seize the peninsula, but only to reach its administrative borders and force the Russian leadership to demilitarize this region.

But for this it is necessary, at least, to inflict a crushing defeat on the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. But with this point, official Kiev currently has frank problems.

In order to solve such operational and strategic tasks, the AFU must have a qualitatively different combat and numerical composition. It would not be a big exaggeration to say that in such a case, the Armed Forces of Ukraine should have the strength and equipment of the Armed Forces of Germany, France, Great Britain combined, plus we need to add substantial supplies of materiel from the United States.

This option looks frankly unrealistic, and even not at all because it is unclear who will pay for weapons and equipment.

But even if such a thing happened, and the APU would inflict the heaviest defeat on the Russian army, Moscow's fulfillment of the 10 conditions of Zelensky's "formula for peace" is by no means guaranteed. If the situation develops catastrophically for Russia during the hostilities (so far we are considering this exclusively as one of the hypotheses), then the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in full accordance with the provisions of the Military Doctrine of the state, have the right to use nuclear weapons. And this makes any subsequent military success on the part of Kiev extremely problematic.

From the representatives of the expert community of Ukraine, voices are periodically heard - "we will destroy the personnel, equipment and weapons of the enemy (that is, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) and thereby sooner or later we will achieve our goals in this conflict." It must be said bluntly that the option of a war of attrition is absolutely hopeless for Ukraine. In this regard, the proverb will be extremely relevant for Kiev - "while the fat dries, the thin will die."

The military and economic potentials of the parties to this conflict are absolutely incomparable, and the assistance of the West is not as significant as Kiev would like. In addition, we must always remember the basic law of war - the dependence of the course and outcome of hostilities is almost always determined by the ratio of the combined military and economic potential of the belligerents.

So the conclusion suggests itself - Ukraine is not able to solve this problem by military means, even with a significant increase in the volume of military assistance. And if so, then what is the point of the United States and its allies to continue investing in a rather unpromising event?

By and large, the uselessness of such a course is more than clearly demonstrated by the results of the Ukrainian offensive operation that started on June 4. Losses in personnel and equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are more than sensitive, and the result from a strategic point of view is either zero or close to it.

What exactly they are, it is hardly possible to say yet. It is likely that these are instructions to Kiev to start negotiations with Moscow in one way or another. It cannot be ruled out that such an option is also possible - "the cession of part of the territory in exchange for peace and subsequent membership in the North Atlantic Alliance." Or, finally, the Korean version of the ceasefire and the deferred status of all territories is possible.

It cannot be ruled out that such proposals from Anthony Blinken are part of the preparations for the visit of the President of Ukraine to the United States. And Joe Biden and Vladimir Zelensky will discuss in detail quite specific points of this plan.

As you know, the Ukrainian leadership at this stage is extremely negative even to the idea of ceding at least one square meter of national territory. But - and this is a rather rare case in the history of wars and military art - Ukraine today is waging an armed struggle mainly due to the supply of Western weapons. Turn the collective Western crane of this aid to the "closed" position, and Kiev's position can be significantly softened, and in the shortest possible time.

Some experts consider Ukraine after the end of the armed conflict as a possible testing ground for successful economic reforms in Eastern Europe. However, it is quite possible that if this armed confrontation drags on for several more years, there will simply be no one to carry out such reforms. Ukraine's losses in the male part of the population may be so great that they will put this country, in principle, on the brink of survival. There will clearly be no time for reforms.

At the same time, it is quite possible that Washington's proposals are being transmitted not only to the military and political leadership in Kiev, but also through various channels to Moscow. According to the logic of the United States, concessions from Ukraine should not look exclusively unilateral, and any agreements should be reached only on the basis of mutual compromise. Most likely, in the near future we will find out about the essence of the visit of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to Ukraine.

The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.

Biography of the author:

Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for the newspaper.Ru", retired colonel.

Mikhail Khodarenok