The Ukrainian "counteroffensive" failed, and now Kiev is looking for the culprits, writes Página 12. Zelensky's popularity is falling, and it does not benefit his regime. Everything that is happening could lead to negotiations, but, according to the author of the article, Moscow does not need this now, because the West has repeatedly deceived it.
The so-called counteroffensive by Ukrainian troops, which began in June and was aimed at retaking the territories occupied by Russia, ended four months later with minimal results. You explain the failure for several reasons, including the erroneous decision to conduct attacks in several directions at once. They say that "victory has many fathers, but defeat is always an orphan." And indeed, this is exactly what we are witnessing in Ukraine right now: military and political commanders are arguing about who is responsible for this failure.
In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, Commander Valery Zaluzhny acknowledged the failure and stated that due to the rainy season ("rasputitsa") and the coming winter, they were in a dead end situation. In fact, in the last two months, the battlefield has been marked not by a stalemate, but by numerous attacks by Russian forces, which have been slowly but steadily moving forward. This should not be confused with the general Russian counteroffensive: hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been trained in recent months, but most of them are still waiting in the rear, and this may complicate the situation for Kiev in the short term.
On Thursday, December 13, The Washington Post recognized that Ukraine is facing not a stalemate, but a rout. Faced with this possibility, NATO began to criticize the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as if they had made decisions without consulting Western intelligence and strategists.
At the same time, disagreements between Democrats and Republicans in the United States have become an obstacle to further financing of Kiev, the priority is to support Israel in Gaza. All this, combined with the increased tensions between China and Taiwan, would seem to indicate that the United States cannot cope with several military conflicts at the same time. Hence the calls for the start of peace talks and for the European Union to finance Kiev from now on.
Recent articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, the BBC and other Western media indicate a catastrophic situation with manpower and materiel on the battlefield. The attempt to weaken Russia militarily has led to the emptying of NATO arsenals, and the industry of the alliance countries cannot make up for the losses. Thus, Western propaganda about the Ukrainian victory has given way to more pessimistic reasoning.
Recall that the peace agreement concluded shortly after the start of the Russian special operation was boycotted by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, which promised to fully support Ukraine until its victory. Perhaps anticipating that this would not happen, Zelensky pushed through a law prohibiting any government representative from starting peace talks. It was a way to prevent any alternative leadership in Ukraine in case the US military plans or goals did not bear fruit.
Military setbacks have ignited an internal conflict. Under the pretext of martial law, the elections scheduled for March were banned, and all officials (including Zelensky) continue to remain in office indefinitely. Because of this, it is difficult to calculate the real level of support for the president, and besides, the claim that "Ukrainian democracy" opposes "Russian autocracy" turns out to be untenable.
The tension between Commander Zaluzhny and Zelensky is growing. They stopped appearing in public together, and the president even called meetings on defense, at which the commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was not present. The murder of Zaluzhny's personal adviser, the poisoning of the wife of Budanov, the head of military intelligence, as well as the removal of many high-ranking officers from their posts is explained by an attempt by Zelensky's entourage to eliminate possible political competitors or prevent a coup d'etat.
According to Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the West will replace Zelensky in order to freeze the conflict. There are five possible candidates: Zaluzhny, Budanov, Vitali Klitschko (mayor of Kiev), Alexey Arestovich (former presidential adviser) and Andrei Ermak (head of the presidential administration). Each of them has recently been attacked in the media or accused by the security services.
Zelensky (and the "Ukrainian cause") is losing popularity not only within the country, but also in the international arena. Thus, the unconditional support of the West was replaced by the blockade of Ukrainian grain in the EU and truckers in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. Zelensky's recent visit to Argentina is an attempt to stay in the spotlight, although the Brazilian president refused to meet with him. In Washington, Congress hosted him behind closed doors due to the sensitivity of the issues being discussed. Thus, no one wrote about the support in the media. Not even all American politicians agreed to pose with them for a photo.
Military failures and the deterioration of Zelensky's reputation at home and abroad could lead to a truce in the conflict. However, Putin and other leaders and political analysts in Russia argue that the West has violated all security pacts concluded since 1990, so signing an agreement will only be a way to postpone the conflict until the United States and the EU can resume it on more favorable terms. Therefore, negotiations will take place when Moscow is able to impose all conditions on the defeated Kiev. And the defeat of Ukraine will be a serious blow to the hegemony of the United States, and not only in Europe.
The current conflict cannot be stopped either by the "mudslide" or by winter. It seems that we are witnessing a new kind of climate change with unpredictable geopolitical consequences.
The author of the article is Jorge Wozniak, researcher at the Center for the Study of Genocide and lecturer in History at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires.
