Comment on this storyComment
During a secret visit to Ukraine by CIA Director William J. Burns earlier this month, Ukrainian officials unveiled an ambitious strategy to retake Russian-held territories and begin ceasefire negotiations with Moscow by the end of the year, according to visiting officials familiar with the matter.
Burns’ trip, which has not yet been reported, included meetings with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and senior Ukrainian intelligence officials. This came at a critical moment in the conflict, as Ukrainian forces struggled to gain an early advantage in their long-awaited counteroffensive, but have yet to deploy most of their western-trained and equipped assault brigades.
“Director Burns recently traveled to Ukraine, as he has done regularly since the latest Russian aggression began more than a year ago,” said a US official who, like others, spoke about the unannounced visit on condition of anonymity.
Their purpose is to reaffirm the Biden administration’s commitment to sharing intelligence to help Ukraine defend itself, the official added.
Ukrainian officials have publicly expressed frustration with critics of the pace at which the counteroffensive has proceeded so far. But privately, military planners in Kiev have conveyed to Burns and others their optimistic confidence in their goal of recapturing significant territory by the fall; bring artillery and missile systems near the border line of Russian-controlled Crimea; advance further into eastern Ukraine; and then begin negotiations with Moscow for the first time since peace talks collapsed in March last year, according to three people familiar with the planning.
“Russia will only negotiate if it feels threatened,” a senior Ukrainian official said.
It remains to be seen whether Ukraine can implement these plans within such a tightened schedule. The CIA declined to comment when asked for Burns’ assessment of the offensive’s prospects.
Ukraine faces mine and personnel problems in the first weeks of the offensive
Burns’ trip took place shortly before the aborted uprising of Russian mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin against the Russian defense contractor. Although US intelligence found out in mid-June that Prigozhin was planning an armed attack, those findings were not discussed at meetings with Zelenskyy and others, the US official said.
Biden administration officials have repeatedly stressed that Washington and Kiev had nothing to do with the failed March on Moscow, a rare challenge to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the United States has described as an internal matter.
To reinforce that line, Burns called his Russian counterpart Sergei Naryshkin after the incident and stressed that the United States was in no way involved, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Zelenskyy and his military commanders face entrenched Russian forces in occupied parts of eastern and southern Ukraine and are under extraordinary pressure from Western nations, which have provided Kiev with billions of dollars of advanced weapons and training in advance of the counteroffensive.
Ukraine has suffered heavy casualties as its troops and armored vehicles navigated dense minefields and fortified trenches across vast, open areas. The difficult terrain makes the troops vulnerable to Russian air and missile attacks.
Zelenskyi has conceded that the counteroffensive is proceeding “slower than desired” and officials have confirmed the destruction of some Western-provided Leopard 2 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
But Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov dismissed the skeptics, saying the “main event” was yet to come, while the country’s top military commander, General Valery Zaluzhny, called for patience and said the offensive was being “carried out” just as diligently. possible.
“Yeah, maybe not as fast as … the observers would like, but that’s their problem,” Zaluzhny told the Washington Post this week.
Military analysts say Ukraine’s goal of forcing negotiations, while ambitious given Russia’s fortified defenses, is not out of the question.
“It’s possible they can cut off the land bridge to Crimea by either seizing the site or bringing it within range of HIMARS and others.” artillery, but a lot depends on the level of attrition,” said Rob Lee, a military analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
“If Ukraine suffers too many casualties, their offensive could peak prematurely. But if Ukraine can inflict enough casualties on Russian forces and equipment and stop the movement of reinforcements, Ukraine may be able to weaken Moscow’s defenses enough to achieve a breakthrough,” he added.
In preparation for the overthrow, Zelenskyy and senior officials have begun thinking about how Kiev can force an end to the fighting on terms acceptable to Russia and the Ukrainian people, who have been facing violence, forced displacement, atrocities and food for the past year and a half – and power shortages.
In an ideal scenario favored by Kiev, the Ukrainian military would gain leverage over Russia by pushing troops and powerful weaponry to the edge of Ukraine’s border with Crimea, thereby holding hostage the peninsula that is home to Russia’s prized Black Sea Fleet.
“If Ukraine is able to target other key airfields, bridges, railroads and logistics hubs, it may make it more difficult for Russia to sustain the war,” said Lee, the military analyst.
By agreeing not to take Crimea by force, Kiev would then require Russia to accept any security guarantees Ukraine can get from the West, Ukrainian officials said.
However, obtaining these guarantees was a major challenge.
The Zelenskyy administration has been urging the United States and Europe to make firm commitments to Ukraine’s NATO and European Union accession — but the US and Western European governments remain opposed to the idea and are more interested in pledges of long-term security assistance instead of NATO enlargement, which risks a direct conflict with Russia.
The hesitation has frustrated Poland and the Baltics, NATO member countries awaiting next month’s NATO summit in Lithuania, where Foreign Minister Antony Blinken and other Western leaders have said they intend to offer Ukraine a “very robust” package” to submit. Strong disagreements about the contents of the package threaten to create the impression of disunity at the meeting.
Amid NATO disputes, the US supports incremental moves for Ukraine’s accession
But while US and Ukrainian officials disagree on the issue of NATO membership, they say there is broad agreement on Kiev’s goals for the offensive.
“The US agrees that Ukraine should enter the negotiations from a strong position,” a senior Ukrainian official said. “The United States is satisfied that our command does not do anything stupid, but keeps soldiers and equipment. The support is great and increases our motivation.”
However, there are numerous signs of stress. While US military leaders want to see Ukraine’s offensive accelerate, Zaluzhny has begun to vent that the West has not dispatched munitions and warplanes to the battlefield quickly enough.
It “stirrs me up,” Zaluzhny said in response to complaints that the counteroffensive hadn’t progressed quickly.
White House spokesman John Kirby on Friday sympathized with Ukraine’s complaints about guns, saying, “You can hardly blame them for talking to the world about additional support, be it quantity or quality of capability.”
However, he denied that Washington would play the “armchair quarterback” role from the sidelines.
“Where they go and how fast they go,” Kirby said, “that’s really going to be their choice.”
Ukraine’s cautious approach in the first days of the offensive is a sign of the challenge ahead, analysts say.
“The problem is that Russia has placed a large number of mines both in front of and behind the main line of defense,” Lee said. “Even if Ukraine can make a breakthrough, it will take time to exploit it. It can take weeks, it can take months.”
Give this item as a gift
Understanding the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Check out 3 more stories