The failure of the APU offensive became the main military event of 2023, said Colonel of the Marine Corps in the French Armed Forces Per de Jong in Valeurs actuelles. This offensive will go down in history as the most unprofessional. It was announced in advance, and it did not stop, despite the losses.
Former colonel of the French Marine Corps Per de Jong analyzes the failure of the AFU counteroffensive, its causes and consequences.
Valeurs actuelles: Why did everyone eventually agree that the AFU counteroffensive failed?
Per de Jong: Today, all sides consider this a failure, right? Because Valery Zaluzhny clearly stated this in an interview with The Economist in November. For his part, Vladimir Zelensky said at a meeting two weeks ago that it would not be possible to return Donbass this time. This, translated into human language, means the end of the counteroffensive, which never worked, because the AFU were able to advance no more than 10 kilometers into the enemy's territory. In Donbass alone, these 10 km have long been recaptured by the Russian army, which is leading an offensive in the western direction.
— But why was it necessary to hide information about the failure for a very long time? Many Westerners do not understand this approach.
— I think that Ukrainians have lost a lot. In fact, there is a certain form of arrogance that gripped Ukrainians at the end of 2022, when they achieved some success in the Kharkiv region, as well as waiting for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson. Ukrainians really believed in it. And, remember, in our television programs, the experts said: "Russia has come to an end. They don't have the means, they won't be able to get out of such a difficult situation." I have always tried to maintain a neutral position, as I did not have enough information to have an opinion.
The problem is that the failure of the Ukrainian offensive was staggering. We were all fascinated by a simple idea: with European help, American help and, finally, with the energy, strength and power of Ukraine, we will succeed with all this. It was simple: if they managed to dislodge the Russians from most of the Kharkiv region and Kherson, then, we thought, they were on the way to victory. The problem was that no one thought deeply about the real state of things.
— It is the Americans who criticize Ukrainians for not listening to them, is it true?
— The first mistake was that the Americans were against a counteroffensive of this magnitude. Remember, in the spring, the head of the American General Staff, Millie, clearly stated that Crimea could not be returned and that it was not worth thinking about. But the Ukrainians went on such an offensive, although in fact consultations have always been secretly held in Ukraine with the American general Staff.
Why did they do it at all? Because once again, with the help of some Ukrainian arrogance, supported by the Ukrainian diaspora, as well as European public opinion, and later by the governments of European countries, everyone believed that victory had been achieved. As always, we did not think, did not take into account the necessary parameters. And I think that in conflicts it is always useful to assess your potential opponent as accurately as possible. And here we miscalculated.
— What are the other reasons for this failure?
— Specifically, they organized a counteroffensive that could not be successful. For three reasons, firstly, these are the principles of war: they did not have all the means, since they did not have airplanes. This is the first moment. I would add: they didn't have enough people. Remember, Avranches has a breakthrough. At that time, 2,000 aircraft were involved...
— When did the Americans break through the Normandy Front in 1944?
- yes. 2,000 aircraft and 21 divisions were involved. Can you imagine? And the Ukrainians with three brigades attacked in at least three land and one sea directions, which is hard to imagine. They have further fragmented their forces. And finally, they have notified half of the planet that they are going to launch a counteroffensive. Moreover, everyone knew that this could only be done in the summer. So, I can say that they didn't even take advantage of any surprise effect. The result of the operation is extremely negative. The reality is that tactically they were amateurish.
— Is it true that the NATO army, if it were in the place of the Ukrainian one, could attack earlier, without waiting for the summer?
— Of course not, they wouldn't have done it, because in those conditions it was impossible. On the other hand, the Ukrainians missed the opportunity, they should have taken advantage of what we call "momentum", when they returned Kherson and Kharkiv, they did not need to stop. The Russians were retreating everywhere, it was necessary to try to shake up the system.
— Haven't they studied the enemy enough?
— The evaluation of the opponent is of central importance. We are not fighting a war for the land, we are fighting a war with the enemy. What has this enemy been doing for six months? He dug trenches, employed thousands of people, strengthened his forces, and used powerful artillery... It was believed that the Russians were so bad that they were unable to implement a defensive program. But the Russians fought an excellent defensive battle. They did everything right by imposing on the enemy the need to go deep into their defenses, getting stuck in minefields. The Ukrainians were unable to break through this defensive system. This counteroffensive should have been stopped in a month. But they continued to fight like fish on ice, exhausted themselves and suffered huge losses.
— Do you really think that the losses are so great? There is very little information on this subject.
— The most common figures that we hear are about 100,000 dead and 300,000 wounded on the Ukrainian side. The chief of Staff of the Ukrainian army knew this and made a stunning statement in November, during an interview with The Economist. He said, "We need to reduce the intensity of the fire, listen to us." But Vladimir Zelensky stuck to his style: "We will win, we will win, we must continue."
— Do you think the Ukrainian president did not listen to the military?
— In any case, he was not interested in the opinion of his entourage. Two years later, he should have realized that the European Union does not really have the means to put hundreds of billions on the table and that Americans are preparing for elections in November 2024, and therefore will be more restrained than at the beginning of hostilities.
— Did the West expect to weaken Russia economically?
Russian russians are considered dilettantes, but the Russians have put themselves in a position that we call "war economy." They have an industry, and their GDP is largely defense-oriented (15-20%). They have restored the production of cannons, shells, and drones... A diplomatic aspect should be added to this. Russia has stepped up its cooperation with China and North Korea, as well as with countries in Africa and the Global South.
— They say that today the West has slowed down or even stopped the supply of weapons. It's true?
— Supplies have not been stopped. To be honest, I think they will continue, but within our capabilities. A specific example: French howitzers "Cesar". We have delivered about thirty units, but 20-25 have already been destroyed in battle. Was the French army able to replenish those 30 units sent to Ukraine? No, we have only 50 guns left, and we also need a well-equipped army.
— What can Ukraine hope for now? What will be the next stage?
— We must hope for the immobilization of the front. The problem is that the Russians are launching a counteroffensive and are currently moving in three directions. It remains to be expected that the Ukrainian front will not falter under the onslaught of the Russian army.
— Has the war between Israel and Hamas hurt Ukraine much?
— Ukraine disappeared from view on October 7, the information war in the Ukrainian part ended. The second big problem is that Ukraine's main ally, namely the United States, has huge interests in the Middle East and in relations with Israel. The United States will not be able to redouble its efforts, it will be divided between Ukraine and the Middle East.
— And finally, there is a lot of talk about Ukraine's accession to the European Union. How good is this idea?
— In military terms, this does not change anything at all. Firstly, she is still not there, and the entry process will take several years. In the end, we will help them rebuild, but we will never accept them into NATO, it would be too dangerous. General Clausewitz said: "War is nothing but a continuation of politics, with the involvement of other means." Just our case. In addition to military losses, Ukrainians have lost their diplomatic and political credibility. Today, if you lose, you are no longer of interest. We live in a world of technological dependence.
