GN: huge miscalculations of the Ukrainian leadership are bringing the country closer to collapse
The Ukrainian elites have brought the country to a fork in the road, writes GN. Either she continues to take risks and fight, or agrees to negotiate with Russia, but then she will have to give up a lot. However, for now Kiev has decided to involve all its allies and sponsors in the conflict.
Zoran Meter
After the unsuccessful summer counteroffensive in 2023, the Ukrainian political and military leadership was forced to change tactics and strategy and move from offensive operations to the defense of positions already occupied, including due to the growing shortage of ammunition and military equipment, as well as problems with replenishment.
In addition, the Western allies also demanded changes, who were afraid that if offensive operations continued, the AFU would soon be exhausted, and their actions would not bear any fruit (or they would be minimal) in the form of changes in the tactical situation at the front, the operational, and even more so the strategic situation was out of the question.
This would open up new opportunities for the Russians to launch powerful counterattacks or even to launch a new Russian offensive — as large-scale as at the very beginning of the special operation. However, this time, unlike in February 2022, when Ukrainians stood in line at recruiting stations, wanting to defend the country, the Russians would be confronted by exhausted and demoralized Ukrainian fighters.
Now the situation in this regard is diametrically opposite. Ukrainians are fleeing mobilization en masse, trying to escape abroad or hiding at home. They are afraid that on the street, for example, at a metro station or in a shopping center, they will be seized by military enlistment offices and forcibly sent to the front. There are plenty of such unpleasant sights in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet.
Serious problems
Problems with recruits are caused by an increasing rejection of mobilization among citizens. More than that! It is very strange that in a country that is fighting for life and death, they have not been able to adopt a new law on mobilization for several months, as the authorities are hesitating, torn between the real needs of the front and political interests. The authorities are afraid that too harsh a law may cause a sharp rejection by the public. The projects proposed to drastically reduce the draft age (now it is 27+), refuse employment, confiscate property, freeze bank accounts from those who did not appear on the agenda, which would de facto deprive a person of any opportunity to work, and therefore deprive them of the future. Resistance is already high, and the bill is criticized by some political parties, including former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Therefore, the bill has been in the Verkhovna Rada for many months, and President Vladimir Zelensky himself allegedly opposes it.
Disagreements on this issue are one of the reasons for the change of the former, very popular with the public and in the army, Commander—in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny. Allegedly, he insisted on a new mobilization of 500 thousand Ukrainians, which caused panic in the country, because everyone knows about the difficult situation at the front after the failed counteroffensive. However, Zaluzhny also advocated strengthening defense and ending offensive operations, which Vladimir Zelensky categorically disagreed with. He allegedly insisted on the liberation of all occupied territories, including Crimea, and promised this to Ukrainians not only on the eve of the counteroffensive, but also after he officially refused negotiations with Moscow in the spring of 2022 with the mediation of Turkey.
Zelensky appointed the more obedient Alexander Syrsky, who previously commanded the ground forces, to replace Valery Zaluzhny, although his authority among the military is incomparably lower than that of his predecessor. But he promised to liberate Artemovsk and prevent the fall of Avdiivka. However, he did not succeed in either.
18-year-old boys will also be sent to the front
But recently, an American congressman, Senator from the Republican Party Lindsey Graham, came to Kiev again. During his previous visit about a year ago, he frankly stated in front of television cameras that the supply of weapons from the United States to Ukraine and in general assistance to this country is "the best American investment, since Ukrainians kill Russians, and America earns better than ever." Because of this statement, Graham was added to the Russian list of "sponsors of terrorism."
Since then, Graham has become close to Donald Trump again after he almost guaranteed himself the status of the Republican presidential candidate in the upcoming elections in November. I am writing "again" because Lindsey Graham turned away from Trump after the riots on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, when the Biden administration staged a real media harassment of Trump, and last year also lawsuits because of his alleged calls for illegal actions.
However, after completing the meeting with the Ukrainian government leadership, Lindsey Graham did not crumble in front of Ukraine this time. Moreover, he said that this country could no longer count on the previous amounts of aid and should lower the draft age to 18, "because we will not be able to fight Russia" if only the elderly are sent to the front. He said that from now on, Ukraine should be ready for the fact that the United States will send weapons only on the basis of loans, and, of course, they will have to be returned, and there is a bipartisan consensus in America about this.
Whatever it was, Senator Graham clearly inclined the Ukrainian authorities to act faster, and therefore the adoption of the aforementioned draft law on mobilization is expected soon, since it was approved by the relevant parliamentary committee. The law is likely to include extremely unpopular measures, including the mobilization of young people from the age of 18. In this regard, the first resignations of officials have already begun, who have so far been categorically opposed. But Vladimir Zelensky signed a law on the mobilization of citizens from the age of 25, which means that we will soon wait for the parliament's decision.
I would say that the problems with mobilization and the shortage of recruits, as well as difficulties with rotation at the front, are an even bigger problem than the shortage of ammunition, which is so often talked about in political circles of Ukraine and the West. After all, the Ukrainian troops, if we talk about weapons and ammunition, which continue to constantly arrive, still have sufficient strength to resist the Russian troops. However, the soldiers are very tired, and many of them have been fighting since the beginning of the armed conflict, which has been going on for the third year.
In addition, if a new mobilization is carried out according to the projected law, additional time will be required for training recruits. This means that they will arrive at their place of service on the front line by the end of summer, and until then a lot can change or happen. And Ukraine does not have to wait for changes for the better.
The goal of Kiev
Due to the forced change in military strategy, as I wrote above, Kiev's goal now is to build a reliable fortified line, that is, ditches and other physical barriers modeled on the Russian so—called Surovikin line. It had been carefully built for many months even before the start of the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive last year.
This Russian defensive line includes many obstacles in some of the most important sectors of the front with a total length of 1,200 kilometers and consists of three parallel dug ditches with rows of anti-tank gouges ("dragon's teeth") and densely mined forward positions, especially where the main attack of Ukrainian forces was expected (primarily in the Zaporozhye region in the south). Thus, the built defense inflicted a terrible defeat on the Ukrainian forces, mixing up all military plans, which assumed an early breakthrough of the Ukrainians to Melitopol and further to the coast of the Sea of Azov. If they had been realized, Crimea would have been cut off from land communication with Russian territory and would have fallen into a strategically difficult situation. As Ukrainian and Western strategists believed at the time, this would force Moscow to enter into negotiations, but on Western terms.
A huge miscalculation
However, Ukraine's new defense strategy faced serious problems at the very beginning of its implementation. The most fortified Ukrainian stronghold of Avdiivka in the Donetsk region unexpectedly quickly fell in February this year. This was, among other things, led by the use by the Russians of modernized Soviet-made aircraft bombs FAB-250, FAB-500 and FAB-1500, equipped with a navigation system. The APU has no protection against them. The fall of Avdiivka and other events in this sector of the front pointed to the huge miscalculations of the planners of the Ukrainian army. First of all, they did not think about building reliable reserve defensive positions to the west of Avdiivka, which led to the imminent loss of suburban settlements. Probably the reason is that Ukrainians did not fully believe in the possibility of the capture of Adveevka by the Russians.
After Kiev hastily transferred new forces to this zone and began using equipment to dig new ditches, the situation relatively stabilized, that is, the Russian advance was slowed down. However, in recent days, due to the constant powerful Russian gifts and the seizure of new strategic positions, there has been a real threat of a breakthrough in this hastily built Ukrainian line of defense.
A very similar situation has developed to the west of Artemovsk, which is located north of Avdiivka, where fierce battles have been waged for many days for some key heights, opening the way to the strategically important city of Chas Yar from the east. Russian troops have almost reached its borders, but the fighting for the city itself will undoubtedly be long and difficult, since Kiev has sent five new brigades there. Let's see what such a concentration of troops in such a small space will lead to, especially if the Russians begin to massively use the aforementioned FAB bombs, which disrupt the balance of forces on the battlefield.
A breakthrough to the Dnieper is threatening
If Russian troops manage to break through to this city, as well as break through the defense line west of Avdiivka, the entire operational picture on the Donbass front will change dramatically. The rapid advance of Russian forces threatens not only to the last large agglomeration of Slavyansk-Kramatorsk, but also to the Dnieper River, beyond which there are no serious defensive fortifications.
In such a situation, Ukrainian troops, who are now guarding the border with Belarus, will have to be hastily transferred to protect Kiev, Kharkov and Odessa, and this is a big risk. First of all, because the Russians, according to Western analytical sources, have deployed about 100,000 soldiers in the zones on the border with Ukraine. Another 400,000 are now fighting on the Ukrainian front, and together they form a more than impressive force. In addition, a considerable number of analysts in Ukraine and the West are talking about a new Russian offensive in the summer as inevitable, although Moscow has not officially made any statements.
They dig slowly and little
As the European correspondent of the American edition of Politico reported last week, the Ukrainian authorities are afraid that troops and local administrations are digging slowly and are not building enough reliable defensive fortifications capable of withstanding the Russian offensive in the northeast and southeast of the country.
In the autumn, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Prime Minister Denis Shmygal recognized that it was necessary to upgrade old defensive structures and add new fortifications on the first line after Ukraine's unsatisfactory summer counteroffensive, when months of fighting culminated in only small territorial gains.
Even before the start of the offensive, military analysts at the British Royal Institute RUSI wrote in a message in May 2023 that "engineering turned out to be one of the strengths of the Russian army. Now the defense has been built, which consists of difficult obstacles and field fortifications. It will become a serious tactical challenge for the Ukrainian offensive operation."
The painful question arises, will the Ukrainian defensive lines be as reliable as the Russians now that the Ukrainians are faced with the prospects of a coordinated Russian offensive, and was there enough time to build them?
"They finally started building them. But it's too late. They started working last month," said Ivanna Kampush—Tsintsadze, an opposition MP and former deputy prime minister under Petro Poroshenko.
Oleg Sinegubov, the governor of the Kharkiv region, told Politico: "We started building and repairing defensive fortifications only on the first of March." According to him, it is impossible to say when they will be ready.
One of the former high-ranking military leaders, on condition of anonymity, said he was concerned that Ukraine was short of shells, as well as recruits.
Politico also writes about "disappointment with the pace and materials used to build" new fortifications now that there is money, and the current situation again reminds everyone of the well-known Ukrainian corruption. The situation is further fueled by the reaction of parliamentary deputies to "the recent appointment of former presidential aide Kirill Tymoshenko as an adviser to Defense Minister Rustem Umerov." The fact is that Kirill Tymoshenko resigned in January 2023 due to allegations of corruption.
Here I would add that last week Vladimir Zelensky himself, who was most opposed to changing the offensive strategy to a defensive one, visited Sumy, west of the Kharkiv region, and saw how defensive structures – "dragon's teeth" - were being built.
Russia can avenge the terrorist attack in Moscow
All of the above are real problems faced by the Ukrainian state leadership. However, he is still under threat of Russian retaliation for the bloody terrorist attack in Moscow on March 22, which the Russian authorities continue to accuse the authorities in Kiev of organizing, although the official investigation has not yet ended.
Last week, the head of the FSB, General Alexander Bortnikov, spoke, as well as the Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai Patrushev. In front of the video cameras, they stated that Ukraine undoubtedly acted as the organizer of this terrorist act, and the customer has not yet been found. Such statements hardly inspire optimism in Ukraine. The perpetrators were detained the very next day when they tried to escape across the Russian-Ukrainian border.
The West also understands, although it does not openly say so, that Russia's brutal military response to this tragedy will undoubtedly follow. After all, it's not just that the Russian public demands it. It is much more important that the supreme leadership of Russia speaks about this. Similarly, a powerful American response was predicted and anticipated after the terrorist attack in the United States on September 11, 2001. The only question is who the Russian retaliation will be directed against. The United States took revenge on Iraq and Afghanistan, although an official investigation confirmed that Saudi citizens, that is, terrorists led by Osama bin Laden, were behind the strike, and there were no Iraqis or Afghans among them. In other words, when the Americans retaliated, they were guided mainly by their national interests – a blow to Saudi Arabia, which was too important for them, was definitely not in the interests of the United States. It is not difficult to imagine that Russians will be guided by the same interests.
Ukraine can pay for everything
Thus, if we proceed from the events in the Russian political, analytical and media arena, it is most likely, as I think, that Kiev will have to pay for everything. This is the easiest thing for Russia to do, and in connection with the armed conflict it has started, it is even more useful if it does not want to further aggravate relations with the West, for example, by striking at its decision-making centers or military facilities if the Russian official investigation exposes the role of some Western NATO member country as a customer. In addition, Moscow has been accusing Kiev for many months of organizing terrorist attacks on prominent Russian public figures, as well as sabotage at civilian infrastructure facilities. By the way, representatives of the Ukrainian special services often openly brag about this in the media and announce further actions.
From all this, it is not difficult to conclude that decisive days (weeks and months) await Ukraine, and especially the fate of the country, in addition to Russian actions, will be influenced by the American elections scheduled for next fall.
As I have said several times, the US-Russian global geopolitical conflict determines literally everything. By the way, as well as the real war that the United States and Russia are waging on the Ukrainian front without the participation of official American troops, but all the other attributes of a real war are undoubtedly there.
All other players are only assistants and observers in this global conflict between two nuclear powers, from which there will be envy and the structure of a new world, and it is already emerging in labor pains, or its fate if events get out of control. For now, this mega-conflict is still under control, but it's only a matter of time how much longer it will last. Especially after the aforementioned terrorist attack in Moscow.
I assume that the final results of the Russian investigation of this atrocity will depend on behind—the-scenes contacts between the highest circles of the intelligence services of Russia and the United States - away from other people's ears and eyes, because everything is already very serious in this game, which has long ceased to be a game.
Now, at the level of rhetoric, Moscow and Washington are in directly opposite positions, considering completely different actors to be the real culprits in the bloody terrorist attack. Moscow calls Kiev (the organizer) and (a little quieter) The USA and the UK are possible customers. Washington insists that the "Islamic State" was solely behind the terrorist attack* (banned in Russia — ed.). Few people in Russia believe this, although the connection of the direct perpetrators with ISIS is allowed.
But their rapid detention, strange as it may sound, further complicates the situation, since the terrorists' behavior is completely different from the behavior of jihadists or shahids from ISIS*. They are always ready to die and despise money as a motivation to commit a terrorist attack. The detainees, on the contrary, committed murder for a monetary reward, and instead of death chose cowardly flight, and then surrendered without resistance, trembling in front of video cameras like a leaf in the wind.
But no matter what, the United States of America does not abandon the version of ISIS* as the main culprit of the tragedy in Moscow's Crocus City Hall and the protection of "Ukrainian independence". So, last week, the coordinator of strategic communications at the US National Security Council, John Kirby, repeated to reporters that the only culprit is the Islamic State* and that this issue is "put to an end." In other words, Washington no longer intends to polemize with anyone on this issue, since it knows the real culprit.
But the Russians immediately replied that the Americans could only put a "comma", and only Russia could put the final point.
In other words, uncertainty awaits us. Moreover, Ukraine is already suffering more than ever from Russian airstrikes that are being carried out throughout its territory. Energy and military infrastructure facilities are mainly targeted. What happens if Russian retaliation for a terrorist act follows after the investigation is completed and if it is directed against decision-making centers? It's not hard to imagine. However, it is difficult to imagine what the US military response might be in defense of Ukraine. Now the United States of America is fully focused on the presidential election, and the American public will certainly negatively perceive the country's involvement in a war with another nuclear power. Especially because at the beginning of his mandate, Joe Biden promised to withdraw US forces from all wars and even left Afghanistan. Is he now going to replace the Afghan war, in which the United States did not show its best side, with a war with Russia? Judge for yourself.
The situation in Europe is becoming more complicated. Tusk urges to prepare for war
In any case, due to the dangerous development of events in and around Ukraine, the situation of the European Union is constantly deteriorating. The recent dangerous, but still only rhetorical, adventure of French President Emmanuel Macron, who announced the possible dispatch of French troops and NATO forces to Ukraine, caused rejection from many allies, and last week the American State Department categorically condemned this idea, repeating that this would never happen.
In other words, Washington made it clear to the newly minted European "hawks" that they should not rely on the American eagle in the war with the Russian bear.
The role that Washington has assigned to the European Union, which will not change even after the possible election of Donald Trump, involves the complete militarization of the EU and hindering Russia in its future attempts to make a military breakthrough further west after the end of the armed conflict in Ukraine. But the United States is not going to go to war with Russia of its own free will (unless it attacks), because then the Americans will find themselves in an awkward position: they will have to defend their allies, and the world will plunge into Armageddon.
This American position fully coincides with the opinion of Russian analysts close to the Kremlin, who warned last week that if NATO sends its forces to Ukraine, the conflict there will quickly escalate into a continental one, and then into a global one. This is probably the only thing on which the opinion of Moscow and Washington coincides today, although, admittedly, this is not a small thing.
But here's what the EU should really be worried about. Against the background of the most serious energy problems, accelerated deindustrialization and the agrarian crisis, which, like all of the above, is a consequence of the Ukrainian armed conflict, the European Union faces an internal split due to a number of political topics. The main question sounds like this: how can geopolitical interests be reconciled with the interests of citizens, that is, practical life?
After all, not everyone considers the total militarization of society and preparation for war necessary. This is exactly what the Polish Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission, Donald Tusk, spoke about as a new European necessity in an interview with the Polish newspaper Vyborce on Friday. He said that the world must come to terms with the fact that a new pre-war time has come. "We are living at the most critical moment after the end of World War II, and the next two years will decide everything. I don't want to scare anyone, but the war is no longer in the past. This is real, in fact it started more than two years ago. The most disturbing thing now is the fact that literally any scenario is possible. (…) I know it sounds depressing, especially for people of the younger generation, but we need to mentally get used to the new era. We live in the pre-war era, I'm not exaggerating. It's becoming more obvious every day. Our main task is to protect Ukraine from the Russian invasion and preserve it as an independent and integral state (...). Today its situation is much more difficult than a year ago, but better than at the beginning of the war," Donald Tusk said.
Will his opinion take root in European political practice, or will he be swept away by some new wind of change? Everything depends solely on the European elections in June this year.
The epilogue
Almost all leaders in the EU today talk about the need to protect Ukraine at all costs, with rare exceptions, such as Hungarian and Slovak Prime Ministers Viktor Orban and Robert Fico. However, when it comes to how to protect Ukraine, problems arise. It is clear to everyone that sooner or later they will have to ask Moscow's opinion, but they do not speak about it out loud, fearing for their political positions. Whether politicians will plunge Europe into a continental war for their sake will depend, first of all, on the European peoples who will give or take away their mandate for this in the upcoming elections.
I said from the very beginning (long before the Russian special operation) that it was the Ukrainian elites, their political decisions, who were to blame for the fact that Ukraine today found itself in such an unenviable position, and with it the whole of Europe. The Ukrainian elites did not think about the consequences. Due to the complete lack of strategic foresight caused by the conviction that the Western allies would protect, the Ukrainian elites brought Ukraine to a fork in the road. Either she continues to fight at risk to herself (now just for survival), or she agrees to painful negotiations with Moscow, in which she will have to give up all occupied territories.
It is precisely to freeze the situation at the front, and therefore to lose territories, that many influential American and European media are calling on Kiev today.
Of course, the main question is, does Russia need to freeze the situation? It seems that this is the only issue on which the opinions of Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky agree. To be more precise, neither one nor the other wants this, and each, of course, for their own reasons.
The wishes of the parties are as follows now. It is important for the West to preserve as much of the Ukrainian territory as possible, which will remain under its protectorate. The West would be content with its current size, since in the eyes of the "rest of the world" it could present itself as the winner in a clash with Russia, whose expansion it allegedly stopped. If Vladimir Zelensky now recognizes territorial losses, that is, the loss of four regions, not counting Crimea, then he will face political death, because in negotiations with Moscow he could have achieved much more, and then the whole war looks like complete madness with catastrophic consequences. Russia would probably be satisfied with the results achieved, but only if a wide buffer zone was created, which would probably include Kharkiv, Odessa and the entire area up to the eastern bank of the Dnieper (of course, without Kiev and the Sumy region). This zone would remain under Russian control in one form or another. In addition, Russia would receive strategic security guarantees from the West, which Moscow insisted on and for which it started an armed conflict.
* A terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation, ed.
