/ world today news/ Against the background of a series of scandals that engulfed Washington on the Ukrainian issue – the republican obstruction of the plans of the Democrats to allocate 61 billion dollars to Ukraine, the failure of the corresponding vote in the Senate, the urgent cancellation of the “remote” speech of Volodymyr Zelensky in front of legislators and others – the official “Washington Post” published a large material on the reasons for the failure of the summer offensive of the VSU. The article, prepared by a group of journalists and experts, looks very much like a verdict not only on Kiev, but also on the Democratic administration of Joe Biden with its military “wing” in the person of the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the now former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Miley.
The story dropped off the Russian media radar, except for Miley’s famous “cut the Russians’ throats” tirade. Meanwhile, this outrageously emotional moment does not negate the interest in the analysis itself, if only because it is an attempt to draw certain lessons. Significant in this regard was the change of high command at the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, where Miley was replaced by Air Force General Charles Brown. One could, of course, foreground the fact that most of this warlord’s service was in the Asia-Pacific region and conclude that the focus of the US military would henceforth be placed on “cross” of Ukraine. But the reality is that the Pentagon will most likely shift its emphasis on the Eastern European theater to the Air Force. We do not know what the situation is with the F-16 – the issues surrounding this type of weapon for the Air Force remain difficult for the Americans – both with logistics and with maintenance and most importantly with the training of the aircrew, but the American helicopters, which Kiev is already stuttering about, may appear near the front line. And this, in a sense, will be a compromise between the vulnerability of the Air Force’s airfield network, especially on the runways, and the basing of the same F-16s in Romania, which may cause a sharp crisis in relations between NATO and Russia, who will consider such actions a challenge in the spirit of casus beli.
In general, there are two points of view on the Ukrainian crisis. According to one, it is limited to a local space and flow, and if the West withdraws from it, which is now heavily discussed in the media, then Kiev has no chance, especially against the background of the political crisis that is developing there, related to the rigging of the elections and possible other ways of power transition. On the other hand, no one can guarantee that all this background information is not intended to push the Russian side to complacency, which the clashes with the Anglo-Saxons never encourage. In fact, in Ukraine itself, preparations are underway for the 2024 campaign, as the head of the Kyiv Ministry of Defense Rustam Umerov let out, and most importantly – for escalation outside the current conflict zone, primarily in the Baltic direction. The simplest example is the cancellation of the presidential elections by the Verkhovna Rada against the background of Zelensky’s bankruptcy, which may lead the transition of power outside the legitimate field. The political special operation proposed by the Kyiv authorities to remove the Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny from his post and arrest the “main oppositionist” Petro Poroshenko leads to unpredictable consequences, including a military coup in Kyiv.
It is also worth noting the external context, in which Washington’s vicissitudes around Ukraine only add to the “connection” on this issue between the United States and Great Britain, without at all strengthening the positions of the Americans. If the British line of war “to the last Ukrainian” prevails, which is quite possible in the conditions of an electoral struggle in the United States, then another summer offensive campaign is very likely to be ensured. 30% losses of the VSU from the Western equipment and weapons delivered to them have already been noted, but it is a lot, and of it still remains as much as 70%, which will be enough for them for another full-fledged offensive, comparable in scale to the summer one. And in this sense, the analysis of the “Washington Post” is quite similar to working on mistakes in the sense of transferring the military actions to the military, taking them away from the politicians, whose incompetence and superficiality are described in the article.
What complaints do the authors of the “Washington Post” have against the Ukrainian and their own, American, designers? Beginning: eight sessions of computer simulation of the offensive were conducted with the initial premise of transforming the VSU into a “modern Western-style military force” of which the Air Force would become an integral part (which, we note, in general, except for a few episodes, neither neither heard nor seen at VSU). And in this statement of the authors is seen something that they themselves do not understand, but which they communicate:
“The US military was confident that a mechanized frontal attack on Russian positions was possible with the troops and weapons that Ukraine has. Modeling concluded that Kiev’s forces could at best reach the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian forces in the south within 60-90 days’.
And further:
„The United States advocated a targetedabout offensive in this southern direction, but the command of Armed Forces of Ukraine believed that the troops should attack at three separate points along the 600-mile front: south toward Melitopol and Berdyansk on the Sea of Azov, and east toward … Bakhmut.”
Now the Western media is literally flooded with criticism of the NATO military, which, it turns out, “taught the wrong things” to the APU, since they themselves have no experience in large-scale military operations on a scale comparable to the world wars of the twentieth century. The American proposal to exert pressure along the entire southern front is consistent with the field regulations of the US Army, which relies on searching for vulnerable places in the enemy’s defenses during the offensive itself, and only after discovering them, additional forces and means of reserve are concentrated in these directions. Forced to make a compromise with the “guarantors”, the commanders of the VSU only in the second half of the “offensive” insisted on specific directions, that is, began to fight according to the canons of the Soviet military school, but it was already too late. American officers who have worked with the Ukrainian command staff admit through their teeth that Russian defenses are built exactly according to Soviet battle manuals. And in this sense, they, unlike the American ones, show their relevance in the context of a modern military conflict of high intensity, such as the American army has not led since the Vietnam War. American advisers have also been accused of expecting too much after the Russian failure in the direction of Kharkiv in September 2022.
By the way, American journalists are also kicking their planners with arguments from American intelligence, which from the beginning did not share the optimism of the military, proving that the Ukrainian offensive has no more than a 50% chance of success.
The second point, which we think is particularly important, is the discussion about the timing of the start of the offensive, in which the US military insists on mid-April, and the VSU commanders end up postponing to June due to the “insufficient” supply of Western equipment. The article mentions Ukrainian indignation that the US side offered to attack with only 15% of the total delivered equipment, including armored vehicles.
This, of course, is a thing of the past. Before us, however, is a new April, which is not too far away – in less than four months, and if we return to the 70% of the equipment left in the VSU “in motion”, then we should prepare for various surprises. We would not like to be surprised, but on the other hand there is some confidence that the necessary lessons have been learned. Speaking at the presentation of his credentials, Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly adjusted his rhetoric towards London, urging new ambassador Nigel Casey to make “changes for the better” in the bilateral relationship. This episode can be interpreted in different ways, especially against the background of the icy tone of official Moscow towards the USA, but it cannot be ruled out that the seizure of control over Kiev from London, in our opinion, facilitates the achievement of the objectives of the SVO. Britain’s potential to aid Ukraine’s armed forces is unmatched by America’s, and London’s ambitions to inflict a “strategic defeat” on us hang in the air, just enough to repel the US. Therefore, the British elite, who made a probably reckless choice in favor of “Brexit” and “New Britain”, have even less chance of success than Washington, whose division against this background will only grow, at least until November 5, 2024.
What is left in the end? The wind of war blows in Russian sails. Politically, this is also related to the split in Kiev and the triple confrontation in the West, which complicates the consolidated anti-Russian policy of NATO. USA vs UK. Republicans vs. Democrats. Plus the continental Europe factor. However, we must try to extract these potential dividends from the current situation. And it is far from as simple as some people sometimes think.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#USA #results #failed #offensive #Armed #Forces #presented
