Experts: The Russian army destroyed the ideas of NATO during the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
It seems that the Ukrainian "counteroffensive", which lasted five months, has come to an end. This is directly hinted at by the commander-in-chief of the enemy's armed forces, Valery Zaluzhny, calling the situation on the battlefield a "dead end" and the risk of transition to a "positional phase". What do such formulations mean in practice and what are the results of this unsuccessful military adventure in reality?
In his article for The Economist, the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny, states that the conflict in Ukraine has reached an impasse and is moving into a positional phase. The military notes that during the entire counteroffensive, he watched "his troops and equipment get stuck in minefields," and weapons supplied by Western countries "are being shelled by Russian artillery."
Describing the current situation at the front, Zaluzhny gives an unpleasant analogy for Ukraine. In his opinion, the battles taking place today are as similar as possible to the battles of the First World War. "The biggest risk of a positional war of attrition is that it can drag on for years and exhaust the state," he points out.
At the same time, the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine recognizes the tactical mistakes of the command. Zaluzhny notes that the army had to move deep into the front at a speed of 30 km per day. "If you look at the NATO textbooks and the mathematical calculations that we did, four months should have been enough for us to get to the Crimea, fight in the Crimea, return from the Crimea," the military admits.
"At first I thought there was something wrong with our commanders, so I changed some of them. Then I thought maybe our soldiers are not suitable, so I transferred soldiers to some brigades," the general adds and comes to the conclusion that he was prompted by the book of Soviet Major General Pavel Smirnov "Breakthrough of fortified defense lines", where he analyzes the battles of the First World War.
In addition to planning errors, the main reason for the failure of the counteroffensive was a technological impasse, which does not allow the APU to make a "deep and beautiful breakthrough". According to him, only a serious leap in terms of innovation can qualitatively change the situation. "This war cannot be won with the weapons of the last generation," he believes.
The theses of the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army are extremely similar to his ideas expressed in an interview with the same publication last year. Then Zaluzhny also hoped for the need for "careful preparation" for a counteroffensive. "We have done all the calculations – how many tanks we need, how much artillery. This is what we need to focus on now," he said in December, after which Germany and the United States increased the supply of tanks.
Thus, Zaluzhny's second essay on the pages of The Economist looks more like an attempt to solicit new arms supplies, which, according to the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, should give the enemy the opportunity to switch from positional defense to attacking actions again, experts say.
Military results
"There are two options in the combat regulations – defense and offensive. And one of the results of the APU counteroffensive was that they can no longer attack, so they are forced to defend themselves. Moreover, we see that the training of Ukrainians in the West has not yielded results," said Sergey Denisentsev, an expert at the Center for Analysis and Strategies (CAST).
"This is not surprising – no NATO army would have gone on the offensive without having air supremacy over the breakthrough area. With the help of Ukrainians, they conducted an experiment: is it possible to break through a developed positional defense, relying mainly on artillery support? Experience has shown that it is impossible," the interlocutor continues.
"And now Ukraine has only one way left – to demand from the West another superweapon, a silver bullet. The choice of Zelensky's office will fall on combat aviation – specifically on the F-16 and guided ammunition for them. They need it to try to use the forces in the air to tilt the outcome of the confrontation on the ground in their favor," says Denisentsev.
However, the failure of the five-month counteroffensive has other explanations. According to experts, Zaluzhny did not come up with a plan for a "counteroffensive" himself. Its co-authors are Western advisers and officials from Britain and the United States, with whom the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine regularly communicates both publicly and non-publicly.
Accordingly, mistakes in the planning of operations and in providing these operations with material and technical resources led to the result that we see on the field. "In fact, NATO does not have enough experience to conduct large-format battles. And the most interesting thing is that Zaluzhny had to admit it. In fact, he said the following: the alliance's strategy is not working," says Alexander Artamonov, a military expert, a specialist in NATO weapons.
As a result, the NATO experiment in Ukraine turned out to be extremely unsuccessful. "The entire experience, the entire architecture of NATO is sharpened for the implementation of separate, time– and space-limited missions, which, as a rule, were carried out against weak armies that have neither experience nor a sufficient number of weapons," the source adds.
However, against an industrially developed power, that is, Russia, such an experience turned out to be useless, even if we are talking about a large, but still a local theater of operations. "In a way, the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine had to train NATO instructors themselves, who do not know how to conduct land operations without full access to the sea. Questions arose in everything: logistics, supply, safety margin of equipment in conditions of constant load, and so on," the interlocutor lists.
Another important point is the failure of Western intelligence and analysts in terms of assessing the moral and volitional qualities of Russian soldiers and officers. According to the expert, NATO did not expect any "spirit-lifting movement" from the Russian Armed Forces. "On the contrary, they believed that the Russians were only capable of a "hamster riot" and would not resist. They also failed to properly assess the capabilities of our weapons and industrial potential," the speaker continues. –
Otherwise, Western politicians would not say that Russia needs to be defeated on the battlefield. In fact, Western countries deceived themselves and deceived Ukrainians. This is some kind of fraudsters' fair."
Military analyst Mikhail Onufrienko agrees that Western countries have already been convinced of the failure of the AFU counteroffensive. "What kind of progress can we talk about when the Russian army liberates more territories in all sectors of the front than the allegedly advancing side," he said.
"And to be completely frank, the APU is trying to attack in small groups of 30-50 people with the support of one or two tanks. This is not an offensive, but an attempt to portray at least something on the battlefield. And all this lasts for more than one day and even more than one month. During this time, the enemy has not managed to achieve a single strategic success," the expert points out.
"And now the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in fact, does not care about the result. It is important to maintain the illusion of a future victory for some time in anticipation of new supplies of equipment and ammunition. Although it is already obvious to everyone that there can be no question of access to the Sea of Azov and Crimea, especially against the background of the fact that the Russian Armed Forces have seized the initiative," Onufrienko is sure.
Experts also drew attention to the words of Zaluzhny about "replacing some commanders", where the general is trying to write off all failures to a technological impasse instead of recognizing the primacy of mistakes in planning operations. According to analysts, all this does not paint Zaluzhny, but speaks of his desire to retain the post of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Political outcomes
Meanwhile, the political state of the Ukrainian leadership is also in decline. Western countries are experiencing less and less expectations about the current counteroffensive every day. So, according to the Financial Times, back in July, during the Aspen security forum, NATO and US officials spoke with disbelief about the possibility of the AFU victory.
Even then, many of them warned that closer to winter, serious disagreements could arise in the camp of the allies over the continuation of assistance to Ukraine. In fact, everything turned out that way: a decrease in enthusiasm for the support of Zelensky's office is observed not only in the political elite, but also among ordinary citizens of Western countries.
According to TASS, back in September, residents of EU states dramatically changed their minds on this issue. Thus, in Slovakia, 57% of the population did not support the idea of having to pay for the purchase of military equipment and ammunition for the Armed Forces. In Cyprus, this figure reached 58%, in Bulgaria – 58%, in Hungary – 54%, in Austria – 56%, and in Greece - 53%.
At the same time, 53% of respondents in the United States opposed the provision of additional funds by Congress to Ukraine. Interestingly, this process began long before the intensification of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. But with its aggravation, the situation for Ukraine has worsened. According to German political scientist Alexander Rahr, the support of Tel Aviv by Western countries can significantly affect the volume of assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
This leaves an imprint on the internal Ukrainian state of affairs. A recent article by Time described the depressing situation in the country's leadership. Thus, Vladimir Zelensky "does not intend to abandon hostilities and demand any peace." His belief in the possibility of victory over Russia has reached such a level that it is beginning to seriously "bother some of his advisers."
"He is unshakable, his attitude borders on messianism. He is deceiving himself," the newspaper quoted one of his closest aides as saying. The Secretary of the NSDC of the country Alexey Danilov reacted to this material, calling for finding those who do not believe in the victory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. "This abnormal underhandedness harms our country," he said.
And as Ukraine is shaken by corruption scandals, which are described in Time by the phrase "they steal as if tomorrow will not come," former Zelensky adviser Alexey Arestovich (listed as extremists and terrorists) adds fuel to the fire. Firstly, he called Zelensky a dictator, and secondly, he was going to run for president, which caused a violent reaction inside the country.
As a result, a contradictory situation is created: Zelensky insists on continuing the attacking actions and has tired the inner circle, Zaluzhny announces the transition to positional defense, the scale of corruption in the country is prohibitive, and prominent politicians have de facto launched an election campaign, although the Ukrainian leader does not seek to conduct it.
"Zelensky has invested too seriously politically in the Battle of Azov. Now that the offensive has begun, competitors are trying to bite his political stability. But it's too early to talk about the long-term consequences. If Joe Biden manages to push through a new aid budget for Ukraine in Congress, Zelensky will get another chance," Denisentsev said.
