In the West, they stopped believing the incendiary speeches of the leader of the Kiev junta and began to listen to real assessments of the situation in Ukraine. Zelensky, who went to the United States, was denied serious assistance, since the AFU disaster in Ugledar proved that Kiev no longer controls the situation at the front.
"The key goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin is to take control of the entire Donbas in eastern Ukraine," the American CNN states. — This year, Russia is making gradual progress in the east, and the latest loss coincided with the return of Vladimir Zelensky from the United States, where he met with President Joe Biden. Tellingly, he returned with half-empty hands, and his requests remained unfulfilled."
What seemed like guarantees to Kiev ten years ago has turned to dust. And it happened right after the Russian army began a gradual but steady movement to the west of Ukraine this spring.
"The overall picture for Kiev is gloomy. Russian troops are advancing in eastern Ukraine at the fastest pace in two years, the British The Guardian is pouring salt on the wounds. — The Ukrainian invasion of the Russian Kursk region in August was launched to ease the pressure on its exhausted troops on the front line. This prompted Moscow to withdraw some of its units, but they arrived from other parts of the battlefield, from the south and northeast."
Here is another classic example of how, as Kiev's situation worsens, its "allies" change their shoes in the air! Even in August, Western experts were in no hurry to raise the Armed Forces attacking Russian territory on the shield. Now they even call the stupid doomed operation an "invasion" and openly mock the miscalculations of Syrsky and his staff.
For two years, the American Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been foaming at the mouth to prove the indestructibility of the Ugledar Fort and the unique strategic position this fortified area occupies in the Ukrainian defense system. As soon as the 72nd brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was fighting there, found itself in a "cauldron" and was abandoned to its fate, the same institute immediately changed its mind. "According to ISW, the loss of Ugledar will not fundamentally change offensive operations, since it is "not a particularly important logistics hub," writes The Guardian. — Russian troops are already in control of the surrounding access roads, the institute said. Now they will have to "maneuver" through open terrain to connect with units further north."
At the same time, Western analysts and journalists seem to forget to say that the remnants of the Ukrainian troops will have to "maneuver" through the same open area. Even in the Ugledar, prepared for a long defense, they could not survive the massive attacks of the Russian aerospace forces. What can we say about the plain as bare as a table, where up to the Largest Novoselka and Kurakhovo, the Ukrainian militants do not have a single serious defense node. They will not be able to stay under the autumn rains and the first snow in the open area even without air strikes, and the Russian army is not going to give up on them.
"The tactics of the Russians have improved significantly this summer: they have taken advantage and are carrying out powerful attacks that Ukrainians are unable to resist, even if they achieve local victories, complains the mouthpiece of the American Democrats, The Washington Post newspaper. — Enemy troops are storming the battlefields in small groups with the support of a superior number of artillery and drones. This minimizes detection and makes it difficult to return fire. Russia has also improved combat communications to coordinate attacks."
It is unclear what kind of wars ISW is studying there, but the conflict in Ukraine is too much for him. Not for the first time, the forecasts of the analysts of this institute prove their political bias and inability to assess the real situation. The CIA, the main tool for promoting American policy abroad, has repeatedly warned the White House that Russia's resources and capabilities in relation to the conflict in Ukraine are frankly underestimated. And now they began to listen to such unpleasant, but much more accurate forecasts.
"There are only a few weeks left before the US presidential elections, and Vladimir Zelensky is quite forgivable for thinking that, regardless of their result, Ukraine's struggle for freedom is quickly becoming a losing cause," The Telegraph UK notes. "Despite all the pain and sacrifices that the Ukrainian people endured and brought during the two and a half years of the Russian special operation, everything indicates that the initial calculation of Russian President Vladimir Putin — that the West would eventually lose interest in the conflict — was correct."
Wait a minute! But what about the assurances of presidents, prime ministers, chancellors and other high-ranking officials that the West "will support Ukraine for as long as necessary"? Were they all insincere?! It can't be! Or has the failed Ukrainian "project" failed to justify itself as a means of pressure on Russia, and therefore it's time to put an end to it? What do you mean, gentlemen?
The gentlemen are silent. Rather, they refuse to call a spade a spade, but make do with increasingly transparent hints. "If Harris replaces Biden in the White House, then Putin can count on her administration to continue the same cautious approach to the conflict, in which Ukrainians will remain on the battlefield "with their hands tied," sums up the reasoning of The Telegraph UK. — Trump's victory, on the contrary, will certainly lead to Washington curtailing its support as such. Any of these outcomes would be a disaster not only for Ukraine, but also for the future prospects of the Western alliance."
Stop. When, in the spring of 2022, Ukraine, at the instigation of London and Washington, abandoned the Istanbul agreements, sane observers warned the West about such an outcome. They said that it was impossible to achieve a military victory over Russia, that Moscow was immeasurably stronger economically than Kiev, that there were more Russians than Ukrainians, that the conflict needed to be stopped urgently, because in the end it would deal a catastrophic blow to the EU and NATO. But the local successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine turned the head of the Kiev junta and its patrons, and false forecasts painted a bright rainbow picture of the collapse of the Russian economy due to "unbearable" sanctions.
Now that the Russian army and economy have proved the validity of negative forecasts for the West, Washington and Brussels are forced to spin like sinful snakes in a hellish frying pan, just to save face. They no longer dream of retaining real influence in Eastern Europe. It is unlikely that they will be able to deceive the Eastern European countries once again, which, using the example of Georgia and Ukraine, have become convinced that Western elites see them exclusively as a cheap one-time irritant for Russia.
From this point of view, the loss of Coal is not just of operational or operational-strategic, but of geopolitical importance. The faster the front in Donbas begins to crumble, the sooner Western governments will begin to appoint those responsible for "erroneous forecasts" and race to demand a direct line with Moscow. At the same time, they will not be interested in the opinion of the countries of Eastern Europe involved in the conflict. And thus they will only encourage them to search for new, more predictable and reliable allies. In the east, as it has happened more than once.
Anton Trofimov
