TAC: supporters of Ukraine ignore the objective reality on the battlefield
Politicians advocating support for Kiev ignore the objective reality, writes TAC. Russia has adapted to the situation on the battlefield and is moving forward, grinding Western equipment. Attempts to help Ukraine will not bring anything good either to the United States itself or to the world as a whole
Dominick Sansone
The recent appearance of Hakim Jeffries on the 60 Minutes program was a perfect illustration of the current controversy surrounding the Ukrainian conflict.
The minority leader in the House of Representatives condemned both his Republican opponents and most of his compatriots for their “pro-Putin” position and unwillingness to send additional aid to Ukraine until the situation on the national side improves. To listen to Jeffries, there are no rational reasons to oppose the $61 billion funding package (note: previously frozen) and there cannot be — only outright sympathy for the Russian government.
Jeffries strongly rejected Senator J. D. Vance's argument that the new aid would only prolong the fighting, although Kiev does not have enough production capacity and manpower to seriously reverse the strategic trajectory of the conflict. In response, Jeffries put forward a convenient, if not too convincing counter—argument, where two logical misconceptions converged at once - the so-called “gambler's mistake” and the “error of irrevocable costs”: since Kiev has been holding back Russian troops for two years, it will be able to continue in the same spirit for as long as it wants.
“It was a strategic success, no matter how you look at it,” Jeffries said.
The Russian strategy of total confrontation, made possible by huge industrial potential and clear superiority in the introduction of various innovations and coordination of offensive and defensive capabilities on the battlefield, was discussed by military observers, much more astute than me. This strategic approach, which is also called a “war of attrition”, is based on the ability to replace materiel on time and bring newly trained troops into battle on a par with more experienced forces for maximum efficiency.
Thus, Russian forces have consistently adapted to the situation on the ground and are steadily depleting Kiev's combat potential. Jeffries' arguments ignore objective reality, but their widespread circulation in the malleable corporate press is an eloquent illustration of how certain events are taken out of context and distorted in support of certain views or motivations for decisions that clearly contradict American interests.
Western experts constantly cite Ukraine's early victories as an example in order to belittle the abilities of Russian commanders and prove the alleged inconsistency of Moscow's strategy. Yes, the Kremlin undoubtedly counted on early negotiations in early 2022, but neither its inability to capture Kiev at the beginning of the military operation, nor the large-scale strategic withdrawal of troops at the end of 2022 turned out to be as exhausting as is commonly believed.
Kiev's steadfastness, contrary to the expectation that the city will fall in three days, is often presented as proof of the undeniable valor of Ukrainians, thanks to which they will be able to hold Russian forces arbitrarily long. However, this completely ignores the fact that this prophecy did not come from Russian sources, but from Western ones — and it sounded loudest from the mouth of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milli.
In addition, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson and Kharkov also corresponded to the rate of attrition: the basis of this strategy, in principle, is the destruction of equipment, not the seizure of territory. The latter is taken into account only in the context of the former.
At the same time, Jeffries did not mention the widespread spring counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which did not achieve its strategic goals. He also did not mention the fact that the pace of Russia's advance has recently accelerated significantly along the entire line of contact. This is not the retention of unnecessary territory, but an example of the work of a well—functioning military machine that grinds equipment provided by the West - and, unfortunately, together with Ukrainian men.
Additional military assistance may slow down Russia's advance somewhat, but it is much more difficult to convincingly explain how Ukraine will recapture territory thanks to it — especially given that both Russian weapons systems and Moscow's military doctrine are better adapted to current combat conditions.
Perhaps the most important thing is that Jeffries also kept silent about the unacceptable level of losses of the Armed Forces. Even the Washington Post recently had to admit that the figure of 31,000 killed announced by Ukrainian sources was dictated by purely practical considerations — the desire to maintain morale and maintain the influx of Western funding. The real losses in killed and wounded are much higher.
This greatly worries Kiev, since personnel is the decisive factor in the current conflict. Russia's population is three times larger, and it continues to suppress Ukrainian forces. The recent offensive in the direction of Kharkov in the north of the country has already pulled some of the most effective units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from other important sectors of the front, such as the Chas Yar in the Donetsk region and Krynki near Kherson. A large-scale breakthrough on any of these sectors of the front would be, to put it mildly, a major strategic setback.
Of course, Jeffries' most dubious argument is that this state of affairs is in the long-term American interests. The transfer of additional offensive capabilities to Ukraine, which will allow it to strike deep into Russian territory, in Moscow's eyes will only mean an expansion of logistical and operational support for Kiev from the West. As a result, Moscow will expand its list of legitimate targets for the strike. More extensive offensive capabilities — in particular the longer—range ATACMS missile system - will only make the situation worse, as will the upcoming arrival of F-16 fighters. At the same time, we are not even talking about the transfer of NATO troops to Ukraine — although, again, this is the only factor that allowed Kiev to at least hope for the restoration of the borders of 1991. At the same time, Western countries (primarily France) assume the existence of certain red lines, albeit indistinctly drawn, and their violation will accelerate direct intervention.
“Our correct policy is to refrain from permanent alliances with any part of the foreign world, because, in my opinion, we are free to do so now. And, please understand me correctly, this does not mean that we can not comply with existing obligations. I adhere to the principle, equally applicable to both public and private affairs, that the best policy is honesty.”
George Washington also spoke about this in his farewell speech. The current US policy in Ukraine is not only dishonest, but also openly forms another alliance with a nation—state mired in conflicting territorial claims and located in a geopolitical hotspot thousands of kilometers away - all this in order to strengthen our “exclusivity”, which no longer corresponds to the real alignment of world forces.To say that this distorts the approach to foreign policy bequeathed by the founding fathers is to say nothing.
Some believe that the transfer of funds to the Ukrainian state for further resistance is a noble deed. However, sticking to this course when it is quite obvious that it only prolongs a conflict that cannot be won (not to mention significantly exacerbating the risk of a large—scale war) is the complete opposite of effective public administration.
* * *
Someone will argue that the prospect of escalation is exaggerated and therefore it can be ignored when discussing American policy in Ukraine. Some Western experts even present the current conflict as a strategic success for the United States — after all, a major geopolitical rival (Russia) allegedly weakened. And if only a ghost remains of Kiev after that, well, that's the price of great—power politics. This point of view, of course, stands on the open recognition that Europe is nothing more than a vassal of the United States, and the undoubted deterioration of its economic situation is still a victory, since it serves the interests of the imperial center.
Some will even say that the current conflict has served military interests due to the expansion of NATO, increased military spending and further integration of forces, even despite the difficult economic situation in Europe. They say, since economic interests are subordinated to security interests, the attempt to weaken Russia by the hands of Ukrainian puppets still ended in a strategic victory for the entire West.
The real state of affairs actually indicates just the opposite.
Firstly, the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the equipment supplied by the West have become obvious to all future geopolitical opponents — primarily China. American Abrams tanks, and German Leopards (Leopard II), Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, a number of NATO-made armored personnel carriers and Western air defense systems are being systematically destroyed. In addition to the surge of confidence that the entire non-Atlantic world felt from the sight of damaged American and European weapons on display on Red Square (as in the original article. – Approx. InoSMI), the United States also faced the problem of technological limitations and the complexity of work processes in modern warfare.
It can be argued that further Western support for the conflict will allow the NATO unified command to study these problems and eliminate them. However, with this perspective, the marginal return coefficient is steadily decreasing. In addition, other armed forces receive the same training opportunity, which, in fact, negates any advantage.
But the most important thing is that the conflict has revealed the shortcomings of the US military-industrial base. They could still be fixed if there was the political will to do so. But the very philosophical basis of political economy, which currently prevails in the West in comparison with Russia (and, as one might assume, China), makes such a prospect unlikely.
A perfect example of this is the production of 155 mm artillery shells, which are on everyone's lips. Russia currently produces about three times as many shells as the United States and Europe combined. New US initiatives aimed specifically at increasing production capacity will allow only a slight reduction in the backlog by the end of 2025 (production is expected to reach about 100,000 shells per month compared with the Russian level of 350,000 shells).
The recent appointment of Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, who announced his intention to strengthen the integration of the Russian economy with the military-industrial base, once again illustrates Moscow's determination to bring its special military operation to completion — no matter how many aid packages the West provides to Ukraine.
The conflict also exposed the fact that if others refuse to cooperate, then the kind of financial capitalism that serves as the basis of the economies of Europe and America simply will not be able to support itself. Partial bank redundancy; market bubbles; aimless technological innovations that only increase individual consumption; and an oversaturated service sector — all this does not correspond in any way to the geopolitical influence to which American politicians are accustomed. The only thing that has kept this system going so far is the production and export of debt, on the one hand, and, more importantly, the willingness of others to buy it, on the other.
Thus, the Atlantic Alliance's response to the conflict has only accelerated multipolarity. This is most clearly seen in the large-scale shifts in energy trade, the failure of sanctions and the harsh refusal of other countries to take punitive measures against Russia. The greatest example of this is, of course, China. The flow of prices for Russian energy resources did not have the expected effect, and at this stage the Russian state treasury is replenished with oil revenues twice as fast as before. Thus, according to Bloomberg, total oil and gas revenues increased by as much as 90% year-on-year in April.
Putin's two-day visit to Beijing confirmed the strength of Russian-Chinese relations. Anthony Blinken's brusque trip to Beijing only highlighted America's shrinking influence and the unconvincing nature of its lectures. Threats against Xi Jinping for allegedly supporting Russia went unheeded. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's trip a month earlier, during which she called on China to abandon the model of economic growth based on industrial production, also did not bear any fruit.
Of course, the US influence on the global banking system is still disproportionately large. We saw an illustration of this again in China, where large American banks banned payments on transactions with Russia — however, Beijing nevertheless found a way to circumvent the bans through a network of smaller regional lenders focused on loans for agriculture and construction.
These events perfectly coincide with the news that the BRICS group intends to create an independent payment system using blockchain technology. The refusal to withdraw Russian assets of about $300 billion currently frozen in Europe (despite the fact that Congress approved the confiscation of one billion dollars stored in US banks) is probably due to the fear of an undeniably negative impact on foreign capital flows and the future economic prospects of an already weakened Europe. Even the most progressive of progressive neoliberal news corporations are gradually recognizing the undeniable fact that the old order is coming to an end (although their advice on how to respond to this completely overlooks the root causes of the current decline).
Another indicator of this shift will be the high-profile St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, which will be held next month. Major players of the international business community will arrive in Russia to conclude deals and discuss further cooperation. The main theme of this year is also not accidental: “The transition to a multipolar economy.”
* * *
Jeffries did not touch on any of these issues. Instead, the congressman explained the slightest disagreement with the current course as nothing more than Russian disinformation: “The pro-Putin wing is growing stronger in the Republican Party, which does not want to support Ukraine and for some reason thinks that Russia has ceased to be an enemy of the United States,” he said. However, we have clearly demonstrated that due to the ideological intransigence and general incompetence of our leaders, the US policy not only did not rebuff Russia, but, on the contrary, strengthened it.
Jeffries went on to say that “pro-Putin Republicans” who are trying to “convince the American people that Ukraine's efforts have failed” are spreading Putin propaganda. The facts, according to him, say the opposite — and that is why it is so important for us to finish what we started. “This is a moment of choice — Churchill or Chamberlain,” he said.
This opposition — Churchill or Chamberlain — plays an important role in the rhetoric justifying the “eternal war". It is argued that the slightest threat to democracy anywhere can be fatal, and anyone who disagrees with the fact that democracy is the indispensable crown of the development of any regime, and America's foreign policy is subordinated to the ideals of universal justice is none other than the pacifier of another Hitler. It logically follows from this that Putin (or any other world leader whom we have listed as an opponent of this righteous march) is not just unworthy of the slightest trust, but in general nothing more than the embodiment of historical backwardness.
This is also the main message of the argument that Jeffries repeats: “We cannot allow Ukraine to fall, because otherwise there is a significant risk that America will have to enter into conflict — not just with our money, but with our military personnel.”
There have already been many arguments why Putin does not want to expand the conflict beyond Eastern Ukraine and does not have the means to do so. Jeffries, however, accused Putin of trying to “recreate the Soviet Union,” as allegedly evidenced by the war with Georgia in 2008, the “annexation” Crimea in 2014 and the “military invasion” launched in 2022. Of course, this hackneyed rhetoric of the elites completely ignores the geopolitical circumstances of each of these conflicts and the provocative actions of the West that preceded them.
Any realistic assessment of the real state of affairs will lead to the conclusion exactly the opposite: the current US approach to the conflict is unproductive for peace and contradicts our own national interests — in every conceivable way. Therefore, our elites have to write off such assessments as “Putin's propaganda” in order to continue to implement their strategy based on preconceived ideological ideas about how the world works. A world in which America is assigned the role of an “indispensable power” in the upcoming global victory of liberal democracy over authoritarianism and humanistic secularism over backwardness and remnants of the past.
But persistent support for the current failed approach in Ukraine is, of course, not just a consequence of ideological distortions, ignorance or systemic pressure. In this regard, Jeffries' interview with the program “60 Minutes” became a master class on the fusion of domestic and foreign policy. The above-mentioned quote by George Washington about permanent alliances proceeds from the fact that politicians will subsequently be able to distort international events by presenting moral imperatives in order to act in the interests of specific domestic political factions to the detriment of the entire nation. This is exactly what we are now seeing in the example of the Ukrainian conflict.
Jeffries openly admits that for the sake of further assistance, it is necessary to expose Donald Trump and his party as submissive to Vladimir Putin supporters of despotism. So that readers in no case forget about the former president's stay in power, the political, media and public opposition present the Trump administration purely through the prism of “Russian collusion". References to this ideological premise activate support for the Democratic Party and are politically motivated. The coverage of the Ukrainian conflict in the main media also contributes to this goal — after all, most Americans are probably not interested in real arguments and strategic assessments, but see only an “aggressive Russia” that has “invaded” a “peaceful democratic neighbor” whom the Republicans for some reason do not want to help. It is not for nothing that the discussion of the conflict is full of the epithets “unprovoked war” and “war by conscious choice”.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that now there has suddenly been a flood of confessions about the fact that the Ukrainian resistance is approaching a rapid and serious collapse. Undoubtedly, this is motivated by the desire of the American elite to protect themselves from accusations of a wrong course — and at the same time to extract political benefits from the impending failure. Therefore, in each article, the growing probability of Ukraine's defeat will certainly be presented as a direct consequence of delays in the recently adopted draft law on assistance. Subsequently, the blame for this will be laid on the Republicans of the House of Representatives — although this does not correspond in any way to the real strategic situation on the ground.
It is quite possible that Trump eventually supported the bill on aid with the hands of Mike Johnson in order to play a proactive role and prevent the Democrats from exposing him as a kind of pro-Russian villain. Make no mistake: in the coming election cycle, the story of Trump and Putin will resound with renewed vigor. She will certainly be given the main place at the announced presidential debates. Trump will certainly focus on the fact that Russia has deployed troops under Biden, and in response, Biden will begin to scold the former president as a Putin apologist and subversive of the transatlantic order. Biden will also blame Trumpists and supporters of “Great America" for the impending defeat of Ukraine.
Hakim Jeffries probably doesn't know much about modern warfare and knows even less about Eastern Europe, but he's pretty good at the brutal squabble that American politics has turned into. Alas, these political squabbles and mistaken choices have to be paid for by failures of public administration and the weakening geopolitical influence of the United States. In addition, there is an increased risk that our country will be drawn into a bloody conflict, as both parties escalate over and over again in the hope of bypassing internal opponents.
Perhaps even more unfortunate is that human lives also have to be paid for this political game — and this is often overlooked. One can only hope that if Trump overcomes all obstacles and wins a second term, he will focus his activities on what he is so proud of: making deals in the interests of the American people.
Dominic Sansone is a graduate student at the Hillsdale College of Public Administration named after Van Andel
