There Ukrainian counteroffensive Things haven’t gone or aren’t going the way most optimists had predicted. Various analysts have stated this and the doubts expressed in Atlantic circles have also confirmed it, especially in United States. But this is especially evident in how the US media has been talking about it lately. They are most closely following the developments of the Russian invasion and the moves of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, especially given the weight of Washington’s support.
For some time now the strategic confusions of the White House he was born Pentagon, the differences between the USA and Ukraine, but also the divisions within the government and command in Kiev. The US election campaign is certainly a difficult one, with Republicans showing significant differences over military support for the invaded country. But the obvious difficulties of an army that many in the West had all too easily believed could become a force that fully meets NATO criteria are also serious, as the capabilities of the Russian army are often underestimated, coupled with the desire of the Kremlin, not to give in in the face of the difficulties that manifested themselves on the battlefield.
The result is that the Ukrainian counteroffensive was not an advance that could destabilize the Russian army, but rather an advance that further solidified the front line. One barn That worries Zelensky, who now faces two realities: a potentially even longer and more exhausting war and an increasingly less solid West in its desire to support Ukraine “for as long as necessary,” as Atlantic leaders have reiterated many times .
In all this is the investigation published by the Washington Post on the difficulties of the Ukrainian military operation and the Differences from the USA penetrates the debate like a knife through butter. The US newspaper’s long and detailed analysis, heard by dozens of security, defense and intelligence officials, casts a heavy shadow over the war, but above all over the plans of Kiev and Washington. And it turns out that there are a number of divergences between the Pentagon and… intelligence Both the U.S. and Ukraine have produced battlefield outcomes that are disappointing to many observers.
The investigation confirms that the Preparation The course of the counteroffensive was very lengthy and careful. Kiev and key Western partners have prepared training, exercises and simulations and have calculated all possible scenarios in detail. There was no Underestimation However, according to WP, there were deviations that likely had a decisive impact. The first concerned the air defense and weapons systems required by Kiev, which were not provided by NATO countries on a scale that would allow effective maneuvers.
The second point concerns the timing, as the Pentagon would have preferred an advance in April, but the commands in Kiev were undecided. Another divergence concerned the front on which to attack: for the Pentagon it only had to be the southern axis, which could optimistically break Russian forces through separation Crimea and Donbass, while Kiev preferred to concentrate on several points of the front. The differences also appear to have exploded during the now famous and dramatic Battle of Bakhmut: a bloodbath that became as important for Kiev as it was for Moscow. Several foreign and British commanders had warned of the risk of sending such an important force to a single battlefield, but the impression is that it was impossible for the two warring parties to leave this city, which has also become a symbol of the future of the conflict has become.
There were also clear differences of opinion among the members US equipment. In fact, it appears that US intelligence was significantly less optimistic about the success of the Ukraine campaign than the Pentagon, warning about the defenses built by the Russians and the Moscow army’s numerical and new resilience tactics Changes in generals at the helm of operations were implemented.
All of these factors are then combined with another great topic: the Providing Western military aid. What is happening in these hours in the United States, while the White House fears the possibility that Congress will block tens of billions in military support for the country invaded by Vladimir Putin, is just the tip of the iceberg of a problem that is beginning to unfold itself tear. The whole West. Washington and its European allies are aware that at this rate the war could last for years. The Western defense industry will not be able to support the Kiev army indefinitely while the entire economy of the Russian Federation is focused on the conflict. In addition, the Russian Armed Forces have a single supplier, while the Ukrainian Armed Forces rely on different manufacturers, different models and different logistics. There is also the question of air cover: fundamental to any NATO force and therefore fundamental to an army like Ukraine’s, which is supported and structured according to Atlantic standards.
Now that winter is bringing the front to a standstill again and there are signs of possible negotiation between the parties, it is clear that these differences are becoming more and more visible. The question we ask ourselves is what the Western will is: whether Support Ukraine to act even more decisively even after the lessons of the counteroffensive or to push for the parties to sit down at the table. Not an easy goal, since a negotiated It means finding a compromise that would force Kiev to accept a status quo that is very different from the goal of restoring its borders by retaking the occupied territories.