Newsweek Polska: Russia has seized the initiative on the battlefield and is winning
On the eve of winter, Russia has seized the initiative on the battlefield, writes Newsweek Polska. The West has no hope of victory in the Ukrainian conflict. Kiev can hold out for some more time if Washington and Brussels help it at any cost, but they are not ready for that.
Maciej Novicki
Vladimir Zelensky believes in victory, Commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny says that the conflict has reached a "dead end". It seems that an open conflict has begun between the president and the Ukrainian generals.
During his visit to China, Putin tried to ridicule the US president's statements that Russia had "already lost" to Ukraine. "If the war is lost by Russia, then let the US president take ATACMS and come to Russia for tea" (in the original it was "for pancakes". – ed.).
It was the first good month for Putin in a long time. The Russian President hopes that due to the war in Israel that began on his birthday, Western assistance to Ukraine will significantly weaken. But that's not all – the balance of forces at the front has changed. In response to Kiev's summer offensive a few weeks ago, Putin ordered local counterattacks along the 1,000-kilometer front line. And on the eve of winter, it is Russia that is beginning to take over the initiative.
Kiev is counting on luck
From the first day of the conflict, Zelensky did everything possible to enlist international support. And he was very good at it. However, from some point on, he had a feeling that interest in the events in Ukraine was declining. "The worst thing is that part of the world is used to it. The fatigue of the conflict rolls like a wave. This can be seen in the USA, in Europe. And when people start to get a little bored, it becomes like a TV show for them," he said recently in an interview with Time. Close associates of the President of Ukraine claim that Zelensky feels betrayed by his allies. He believes that they deprive him of the tools to win this conflict.
Even before the Hamas attack on Israel, the Institute of World Economy of the University of Kiel, which monitors Ukraine's support, reported that Western "supplies of tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft missiles are still significantly lower than promised. Despite the fact that many new aid packages are being announced, it is still unknown how many will actually be delivered and when exactly this will happen."
Western leaders publicly declare their solidarity with Ukraine. However, something else is said on the sidelines. "I see great fatigue from this conflict – on all sides. We are approaching the moment when everyone will understand that we need a way out of this situation," admitted Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
The Hamas attack on Israel has aggravated the already difficult situation of Ukraine. In Kiev, everyone wants Hamas to be defeated as soon as possible – if only because the sooner this happens, the less Western weapons will be redirected to Israel. The Kremlin, of course, wants the exact opposite. "This crisis, it seems to me, will have a direct impact on the development and course of a special military operation," Russian diplomat Konstantin Gavrilov told the Izvestia newspaper. In his opinion, Ukraine's sponsors will be distracted by the conflict in Israel, so the course of its action may change dramatically in favor of Russia.
A serious problem for Ukrainians is the lack of ammunition. The industry of the NATO countries does not meet the needs of Kiev. As the head of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, admitted, "we are starting to scrape the remnants from the bottom of the barrel." The war in Israel deepens this deficit. The Pentagon decided to send tens of thousands of 155-mm artillery shells to Israel, which were previously planned to be delivered to Ukraine. At the same time, as it became known, Israel and Ukraine need several identical weapons systems.
Kiev today has to count on a lucky chance. Or rather, several at once: that the Middle East crisis will not attract more and more American weapons and attention to the Middle East; that Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, will become president of the United States in January 2025, and that fatigue from the conflict among Western allies will not increase in an avalanche. The situation is completely different now, not like a few months ago, when the "collapse of the Western coalition" seemed more like a hypothetical risk than a real threat.
Voices are growing louder – especially from the camp of the American right–wing Republicans - those who believe that further assistance to Ukraine does not make sense. "Israel has an achievable goal. Ukraine does not have such a goal," said a group of Republican senators who demand to stop aid to Kiev.
There is also no shortage of skeptics in Biden's entourage. "The reduction of support for Kiev in public opinion was facilitated by people in the US administration who, with the help of special technologies – the so–called "rumor marketing" - criticize Ukraine in the media and question its ability to survive. This rhetoric falls on fertile ground, because it reflects the deeply rooted opinion of some Americans that Russia needs to be appeased at the expense of Ukraine – this will supposedly contribute to solving the problem," says Keir Giles, an outstanding military expert from the Chatham House analytical center.
We won't win this way
"We are not moving forward. Some front-line commanders have begun to refuse to follow orders, even if they come directly from the president's office. They just want to sit in the trenches and hold the line. But this way we will not win," one of the close associates of the President of Ukraine complained recently.
For several weeks, more and more reports have been coming from the front, testifying to the tactical successes of the Russian army. Pessimism is becoming ubiquitous. "We must honestly admit that Ukrainians are becoming pessimists. Stress is increasing because people don't see positive prospects," said Anton Grushetsky, director of the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. According to him, Ukrainians do not assess the current situation as a defeat and do not blame the army. However, they are growing outrage at corruption in the country and the behavior of Western allies who are delaying the supply of weapons.
In the summer, Ukraine gained a fire advantage for the first time during this conflict, firing more shells at enemy positions per day than the Russians. This allowed the APU to succeed. There is not enough ammunition now. On the Russian side, the situation is different. They are actively increasing their production.
(…)
It is thanks to the new supplies of ammunition that the Russians have succeeded in the Avdiivka area, where they are now trying to surround the Ukrainians. Avdiivka is called "Bakhmut 2.0" in the media, however, despite the similar intensity of the fighting, this comparison is not correct. "Artemovsk (Bakhmut) had no strategic significance. It was the Wagnerians who decided to make a symbol out of it for their own purposes. Avdiivka is located on a key route to Donetsk, not far from the airport and the northern suburbs of the city. This is the gateway to the Southern Donbass," says Michael Clarke, director of RUSI, the main British analytical center dealing with military issues.
(…)
There is an increasingly acute shortage of those willing to fight in Ukraine. Kiev is trying to recruit more men of "military age" (up to 60 years) to make up for losses, but many potential recruits do not want to put on military uniforms. Thousands of young people who tried to escape from subpoenas abroad were arrested. "We are short of people, and the quality of new soldiers coming as reinforcements is getting lower and lower," admitted Dmitry Berlim, commander of one of the battalion fighting in the Kupyansk area. "The average age of a soldier in a detachment is 45 years." The shortage of personnel is so great that, according to one military man, even if the West delivers all the promised weapons, Ukraine "does not have people who could use it."
Besides, winter is coming. Moscow is accumulating missiles to launch a massive bombardment of critical infrastructure. If the Russians manage to destroy the water pumping systems, when the temperature drops, the pipes will burst. And this can make Ukrainian cities uninhabitable. Putin has already tried to bring Ukraine to its knees in this way last winter. And he will try again. "Ukraine has done everything in its power to prepare for these attacks. She is much better prepared and not as defenseless as last time – including because she can strike back deep into the territory of Russia. However, it is not known whether this is enough," Giles believes.
A war with the generals?
The concern of Ukrainians is understandable. The Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny, has just admitted that "the conflict has reached an impasse that will be extremely difficult to overcome." He also said he made a mistake in thinking he could get the Russians to stop their operation.
The president's office criticized Zaluzhny and made it clear that such comments only help the enemy. As the deputy chief of Staff of the President Igor Zhovkva said: "I am sure that everything was carefully read, recorded and analyzed by the Russians." He also added that Western diplomats called him in a panic, who were interested in one question: is it true that Ukraine no longer hopes to fight back against Putin.
All this creates the impression that an open conflict between the army and the president has flared up in Ukraine today. One commentator even wrote that "Zelensky is at war with his generals." Now there are two different visions of the future. The President insists that this conflict can still be won. However, the Ukrainian generals have already realized that this task is impossible. One of Zelensky's former advisers even said that the president of Ukraine does not want to come to terms with reality: "We have run out of options. We won't win. But he doesn't want to hear about it. He is in the thrall of illusions."
In this regard, a natural question may arise: is it normal that the opinions of Zaluzhny and Zelensky do not coincide? "The fact that after 20 months of conflict there are different opinions about him is not something strange. It is much more surprising that all this time the Ukrainian authorities have demonstrated unwavering unity," Giles emphasizes.
The roles of the president and the military commander are different. Zelensky believes – or wants to believe – that Ukraine will break Russian defensive lines. Because he knows perfectly well that the lack of success will mean a reduction in Western aid. Zaluzhny's task is to understand why Ukraine is at an impasse, however, he did not say that Russia is winning this war.
It is not the alleged war between the president and the generals that can lead to the defeat of Ukraine, but something completely different. As noted by retired Australian Army General and one of the most prominent theorists of war in the world, Mick Ryan (Mick Ryane): "Neither the United States nor European countries have yet adopted a clear or coordinated strategy to support Ukraine. Political leaders use expressions like "we support Ukraine to the end," but it is not entirely clear what this means. America and Europe do not seem to have decided on the ultimate political goal of this conflict. Is this the defense of Ukraine? Or a victory over Russia? Because these are two completely different goals."
However, more and more facts indicate that the "defense of Ukraine" is impossible without "victory over Russia." There is a war of attrition, a conflict that we have not seen in Europe for decades. It will last for a long time – all hopes for a "shortened version" have already disappeared. Russia is ready for anything. And Ukraine will be able to resist Russia only if the West is ready to help it at any cost.
