It is a battle in which no one wins or loses entirely, which claims tens of thousands of lives. A war of attrition in which duelists hope to wear out their opponents while weakening their own powers in the meantime.
Today, the two main American newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, offered different “readings” of the conflict. These are reconstructions that, in addition to capturing the atmosphere on site, also allow for the judgment of experts. The newspaper in the American capital is very negative about Ukraine and reports on the statements of soldiers on the front lines and in the corridors of power. The points: There is always a lack of ammunition, the new soldiers are inexperienced, Western help is coming but it is not enough, the losses are heavy (approximately easy to replace, and there is hardly any thought of liberating the areas as a broad counter-offensive.
The “notes” were written by the Kiev Independent a few days ago. They reflect the thoughts of some observers and reinforce the doubts – including American officials – about Zelenskyy’s decision to defend the “Bakhmut Fortress” to the bitter end. Significant are the stricter measures to mobilize those who are not yet in uniform. With the new year, the Economist writes, the methods of delivering the postcard have changed: if before the task was the responsibility of only members of the military commission, and they could only do it to their home address, since January the number of authorized officials and there is no more geographic restrictions. There is talk of postcards being distributed at soldiers’ funerals, at checkpoints, in shopping centers or at crossroads: the big difference is that until now the recruits have mainly been volunteers, while the government now conscripts civilians who are not enthusiastic about the fight.
The New Yorker newspaper focuses instead on one element: the invaders have been attacking for months, they’ve seen thousands of their own die (estimated at 200,000 dead and wounded), but reaped minimal benefits. This assessment brings with it the idea of a nearby army that is “at its peak”, i.e. unable to launch operations in depth. Pessimism on the Kiev side is disputed by those who believe in the arrival of equipment, military training in NATO countries and Ukraine’s determination. Which should be able to assemble robust and organized detachments by the summer, ready to launch a series of wartime initiatives, perhaps – analyst Michael Kofman explains – with more limited actions than a mega-offensive. However, critics even recognize the importance of external support, arguing that the material allows Ukraine to stay but is not enough to go further.
When attacking, you must have clear superiority, a remote condition for now. They cite the case of the Leopards – singled out among the problems – and most importantly, the need to have a fully fledged ammunition supply chain. But how long? And at what price? Questions that have important transnational policy implications. In the United States Congress, some Republicans are less and less convinced of a comprehensive aid program: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis reiterated this last night, aiming from the right to get into the White House. “The protection of Ukraine – he said – is not a primary interest of the United States”.
Moscow is also struggling with inventory, but is able to make up for the lack of quality with quantity. What do Zelenskyy’s soldiers who witnessed in the bunkers say? We eliminate dozens of opponents, but they keep coming back. The army generals are deploying Cold War-era armored vehicles, reactivating old tanks – ditto Nato to supply the Ukrainians – but haven’t scraped the bottom of the barrel yet. The head of Lithuania’s military intelligence said Russia could go on for at least two more years. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov today reiterated that the operation will continue until objectives are met and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has ordered production of “precision weapons” to be doubled. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, speaks of an “existential” conflict.
With no real turning point, the scenario of reduced-change fronts returns, with Ukraine proud and tough, but crippled and very dependent on what allies can grant her in terms of shells, cannons, and maybe someday fighters. Poland has not ruled out giving up some of its Mig 29s within a month. Even the veto on the delivery of long-distance systems paints an unfavorable picture: Moscow is ravaging cities and infrastructure while its territory is relatively safe. Just how severe the imbalance is can be seen in his angry reactions when the Ukrainians manage to throw a few blows across the border.