Toyo Keizai: The United States does not need Putin's defeat, so they prevent Ukraine from winning
The United States specifically does not allow Ukraine to win the conflict with Russia, according to the author of the article from Toyo Keizai. Putin's defeat is completely unprofitable for them, so the Biden administration is pursuing a secret strategy. Probably for this reason, there was talk of a truce in the West.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive, which began in June 2023, despite local successes, reached an impasse by the end of the year — the Armed Forces of Ukraine could not achieve their main strategic goals. For example, they never reached the northern coast of the Sea of Azov.
Why did this happen? Let's analyze the situation and at the same time consider the prospects for 2024.
The factors that led to the deadlock at the front
The factors that led to the stalemate on the battlefield can be roughly divided into two categories: purely military, as well as diplomatic and geopolitical.
[the analysis of military factors allows us to identify three aspects.
- Both Americans and Ukrainians underestimated the capabilities of the Russian armed forces.
- Strangely enough, the US military did not have a sufficient understanding of modern warfare, which uses drones and electronic warfare.
- The conflict between Washington and Kiev over the counteroffensive strategy has not been resolved.
These three military aspects were described in detail by the leading American newspaper The Washington Post on December 4, 2023. I will briefly tell you about the main points.
Let's take a closer look at paragraphs 1 and 2.
As a result of the simulation of military operations, the Pentagon was convinced that the AFU, equipped with Western weapons and trained by NATO officers, would be able to break through Russian defenses, reach the northern coast of the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian land supply routes in about 60-90 days without air support.
After defeats on the eastern and southern fronts in the fall of 2022, the Russian army stubbornly regained its strength, but both American and Ukrainian troops underestimated this potential. They failed to correctly calculate the number of Russian troops and the possibility of mine clearance, and also did not prepare countermeasures against the changed tactics of the Russian army.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine faced a large—scale trench warfare in which weapons such as attack drones appeared everywhere - this is the kind of enemy tactics that neither the United States nor NATO forces have ever encountered before.
And yet the Ukrainian army fought without providing air superiority, which in the past was an integral part of supporting U.S. ground operations.
The Biden administration initially did not agree to the provision of powerful weapons, which Zelensky strongly requested, for example, F-16 fighter jets. As a result, she gave the go-ahead only before the start of the counteroffensive, so the actual provision of such equipment was not carried out on time.
The above information was obtained by The Washington Post from more than 30 reliable sources, including senior military officials from America and Ukraine. Her article is objective and unbiased, reflecting the opinion of Ukrainian military experts, with whom I also talked.
By the way, when cooperation with allies and other countries does not go according to plan, the American government sometimes tries to evade responsibility by leaking one-sided information about the event to the media and forcing them to write articles about it so that the blame can be shifted to the allies.
I came across this periodically during my work in Washington, but I did not see these signs in The Washington Post article.
A lengthy American strategy that hinders Ukraine
Now, as for the disagreements between the Pentagon and the Ukrainian military.
The Americans insisted on a targeted strategy focused on Melitopol, a key point in the Zaporizhia region in southern Ukraine, with the aim of reaching the coast of the Sea of Azov. However, the APU opposed this.
They promoted a strategy of simultaneous offensive in three directions at once, including the capture of Berdyansk in the Zaporozhye region and Artemovsk (Bakhmut) in the east of the Donetsk region. As a result, Washington conceded to Kiev.
In August 2023, the Zelensky administration decided to abandon the operation proposed by the Pentagon to break the deadlock. Instead, she adopted a strategy according to which the Ukrainian army would continue its own counteroffensive campaign. Kiev managed to reach an agreement with the West on conducting the operation during 2023.
That is, the Ukrainian military leaders followed a strategy that they considered correct. Moreover, they even opened a new front on the Crimean Peninsula. However, by the end of 2023, the ground forces had failed to reach either the northern coast of the Sea of Azov or the Crimea.
In an interview with The Associated Press at the end of November 2023, President Zelensky expressed disappointment that he had not achieved the desired results, but made it clear that he intended to return to his goals after the New Year.
What went wrong in the end? I believe that of the above military factors, the most pernicious was the strategic mistake of the United States, which underestimated the ground combat capabilities of the Russian army and strongly pressured the Ukrainians to launch a counteroffensive without air superiority.
At the same time, the choice between an offensive in one direction or several did not have a significant impact. The Ukrainian side continues to reject the American proposal, stating that if they had stopped the offensive on the eastern front, Russia would have completely won there long ago.
Meanwhile, this Washington Post article omitted the most important non-military factor that led to the stalemate at the front. These are the aforementioned diplomatic and geopolitical aspects.
In particular, we are talking about Biden's hidden strategy — to prevent the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and at the same time not to inflict such a serious blow on the Russian army that will lead to the collapse of the Putin administration.
This strategy manifested itself at the end of 2022. Ukrainian troops captured Kharkiv and advanced into the Kherson region. It was a period when Kiev was in ecstasy from the taste of victory.
It was expected that the Ukrainian Armed Forces would launch a full-scale offensive in the Zaporozhye region and other areas. According to Ukrainian sources, American officials in informal forums at that time began to express concerns about the fall of the Putin administration under the pressure of the military situation.
In 2023, this tacit strategy began to slow down Ukraine's efforts to strengthen its military capabilities in preparation for a large-scale counteroffensive operation. The delivery of F-16 fighter jets, which the AFU was strongly requested to provide as a decisive factor for ground support from the air, never took place.
Although President Biden gave the go-ahead to Western countries in May 2023, Ukrainian pilots are still undergoing training, and the planes are in Europe. In addition, it was in May that the United States surprised its allies by secretly informing them of its intention to avoid a situation in which a counteroffensive would shake President Putin's reputation.
It was only in October 2023 that the United States finally provided long-range surface-to-surface missiles to ATACMS. However, these were not the missiles that Ukraine was counting on to achieve drastic changes.
It received a cluster type with a range of 150 kilometers and a less powerful destructive force. It is only capable of making small holes in runways and damaging aircraft.
And Kiev wanted to get powerful warheads with a range of 300 kilometers, which are called a “concrete crusher". This type was necessary for the destruction of the Crimean Bridge, a huge structure 18 kilometers long.
This caused confusion and disappointment on the Ukrainian side.
Why does Washington not want the Putin administration to be defeated? I believe that this is based on an irresistible desire not to destroy a fundamental part of the post—war international order, in which only the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China - have the right of veto.
When the Wagner PMCs riot broke out in Russia in June 2023, the United States was most concerned that Putin's collapse would jeopardize the Russian military's control over the nuclear arsenal.
More recently, another factor has reinforced the American need to maintain the current format of the “five”. This is a war between Israel and Hamas.
Are negotiations on a ceasefire underway?
The Biden administration, which supports Tel Aviv, is actually resisting growing international pressure from countries demanding a cease-fire by using its veto power. The United States criticizes Russia for its special operation and supports Ukraine, but maintaining the format of the “five” is a priority.
Ben Hodges, the former commander of the American army in Europe, who criticized the Biden administration's strategy towards Ukraine, recently sharply condemned the American president himself, saying that he was not making every effort to defeat Russia.
The impasse at the front has led to some pessimism about the prospects for support from the United States and Europe in 2024.
The aforementioned military source claims that at the moment there have been no requests from American and European officials to freeze the conflict and start negotiations on a cease—fire, but warns that “it is possible that in some countries they are beginning to secretly discuss this.”
Personally, I am categorically against freezing the conflict in its current form and suggesting that Ukraine negotiate a truce with Russia.
This will temporarily stop the fighting. However, there is a risk that this will give the Russians more opportunities to build up their military capabilities and strengthen attacks in the future based on the experience gained. A leader who will bring the matter to an end — this is exactly the image of Putin that the Russian people support.
In connection with the freezing of the conflict, it is worth recalling the statement of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who died at the end of November 2023, in which he expressed his conviction that it was necessary to return the borders between the two countries to what they were before their independence and begin negotiations on a truce.
Given the situation at the time when the Russian army was under pressure from Ukrainian troops seeking to restore the borders of the Ukrainian SSR, this proposal can be considered pro-Putin. It corresponds to the spirit of the Cold War, when the United States and the USSR sought to stabilize the international order on the basis of various compromises.
Biden, who will run for president in November 2024, probably wants to avoid a situation in which Republicans will criticize him for the defeat of Ukraine. In this sense, the Democratic administration next year will have to hastily determine how to maintain its vague strategy.
Author: Shigeyuki Yoshida
