A new military adviser and a change of strategy: what did the United States offer Kiev instead of money and weapons

Colonel Khodarenok: Kiev needs money and weapons from the West, not new strategies

The United States has decided to send Lieutenant General Antonio Aguto to Ukraine to develop a new military strategy. This was written by The New York Times. Who is Aguto, what can he offer Kiev and how much Ukraine needs regular military advisers - in the material of the military observer of the Newspaper.En" by Mikhail Khodarenka.

The Pentagon has decided to send the head of the Security Assistance Group in Ukraine (from 2022), Lieutenant General Antonio Alzon Aguto Jr. to Kiev. It is assumed that the duration of the American commander's stay in the Ukrainian capital will be very long and General Aguto will work closely with the military and political leadership of the country.

Previously, the White House did not place American military advisers in Ukraine on a permanent basis. It is quite possible that General Aguto's stay in Kiev will lead to the lifting of this restriction.

Image source: U.S. Army

Lieutenant General Antonio Alzon Aguto Jr. is a graduate of the US Military Academy (West Point), previously served as commander of the 1st Army of the US Armed Forces. He took part in combat operations in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the way, last week at the headquarters of the US Army in Europe (in Wiesbaden, Germany), high-ranking American military leaders, including the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli and General Aguto, met with two representatives of the administration of President Vladimir Zelensky to discuss the general directions of strategy for the next year.

Neither American nor Ukrainian officials disclosed the details of the negotiations, much less the details of the new plan. But whatever the final agreement, changing the dynamics is crucial, writes The New York Times. The longer the situation at the front is perceived as a stalemate, the more difficult it will be to provide additional American funding for the Armed Forces, analysts say.

The need for new strategic approaches emerged after Ukraine's months-long counteroffensive failed to achieve its goals, and also, according to the publication, after often very tense meetings between senior American officials and their Ukrainian counterparts in recent weeks.

Why did the APU end up in a dead end

The 2023 counteroffensive was built around the transformation of the Ukrainian army in the image and likeness of the American one, writes The New York Times. According to critics, this was an approach that the United States tried in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but basically such actions in the context of the Ukrainian conflict turned out to be almost completely unsuccessful.

Russia's layered defense included powerful minefields that surpassed in density everything previously known in this area since the Korean War. This technology slowed down and then stopped the advance of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In addition, Russia's combat use of various unmanned aerial vehicles has fundamentally changed the nature of mechanized maneuver warfare.

Ukrainian officials, including Vladimir Zelensky, have concluded that the eastern part of the country is the most important theater of operations for them, since Russian troops have concentrated their main efforts there.

Washington viewed the east of Ukraine, including Donbass, as a strategically less important region than the occupied southern coast of the country. The Americans wanted Ukrainians to concentrate in the south in order to eliminate the land corridor with Crimea.

As a result, Ukraine divided its forces between east and south, refusing to use only one main direction of attack. And instead of a decisive breakthrough, according to The New York Times, a stalemate has developed.

The United States and Ukraine in search of a compromise

According to officials in Washington and Kiev, as the newspaper writes, American and Ukrainian military leaders are looking for a new strategy that they can begin to implement early next year in order to recreate the military power of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and strengthen their support in the armed confrontation with the Russian Federation.

Generals and officers from both countries hope to work out the details of a new strategy next month during a series of war games scheduled to be held in Wiesbaden.

Ukrainians want to move to offensive actions of a combined-arms nature or strike at long distances in the hope of attracting the attention of the whole world.

But there are some signs of compromise. U.S. officials said that Ukraine's deep strikes on Crimea this fall proved to be very dangerous for Russia and became vivid episodes in an unsuccessful counteroffensive. American strategists believe that Ukrainians will be able to build on this success next year, even if most of their energy is spent on restoring their combat and operational capabilities.

The stakes are huge, as The New York Times notes. American officials say that without a new strategy and additional funding, Ukraine could lose.

According to them, many Ukrainian leaders do not realize how unreliable further funding from the United States is. In addition, Ukrainian generals and senior civilian officials in Zelensky's team have unrealistic expectations about what the United States will supply them in the near future.

Some high-ranking military personnel in the US Armed Forces want Ukraine to adhere to the "hold and build up" strategy, i.e. it should focus on retaining the territory it currently possesses and increase its capabilities to produce weapons and military equipment during 2024. The United States believes that such a strategy will increase Ukraine's self-sufficiency and provide Kiev with the opportunity to repel any new Russian offensive.

American officials believe that without a change in strategy, 2024 could become similar to 1916, the deadliest year of the First World War, when, despite heavy losses, the front line changed very slightly.

Who advises Kiev

In August 2023, a meeting was held on the Polish-Ukrainian border between American General Christopher Cavoli, British Admiral Anthony Radakin and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny. As The Guardian newspaper wrote at the time, "the purpose of the five-hour meeting was to help reset Ukraine's military strategy."

Now let's turn to the personalities of the advisers:

In August 2023, General Valery Zaluzhny was advised by sailor Anthony Radakin, who had never participated in high-intensity conflicts, with the exception of the short-term 2003 campaign in Iraq, which amounted to a three-week total beating of Saddam Hussein. Radakin also never led the country's armed forces in repelling an enemy attack.

General Christopher Cavoli served as part of the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, took part in combat operations in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. And Ukraine, as you know, is far from Afghanistan. That is, not once in the course of his entire service has an American general met with an enemy equal to the US Armed Forces in combat and operational capabilities. Cavoli never led a large operational and strategic association during the war.

Now Lieutenant General Antonio Alzon Aguto Jr. is acting as the chief military adviser from the United States in Ukraine. One can say quite briefly about his military biography - he does not have experience in strategic planning of the use of the Armed Forces.

Illusory hopes

As for the American calls to increase Ukraine's own capabilities for the production of weapons and military equipment during 2024, they look rather illusory. The country's industry has been destroyed, and the production of modern weapons requires high technologies that the collective West is unlikely to transfer to Kiev.

Ukraine is asking the United States for F/A-18 Hornet fighters, C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster military transport aircraft, Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk multipurpose helicopters and mobile ground-based anti-missile systems for high-altitude interception of medium-range THAAD missiles.

Fulfilling such a request would be much more effective for Ukraine than various kinds of overloads of military strategies and the development of their new models. But Kiev cannot expect supplies of such weapons in the near future. And the development of strategies that are not supported by the supply of weapons in the required volumes has little to do with reality.

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 Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.

Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military-Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).

Mikhail Khodarenok