/ world today news/ It seems that the USA has decided to change its approach to the conflict with Russia in Ukraine. According to reports in the Western media, Washington is forcing Zelensky’s cabinet to implement a new strategy called “Hold and Build”. What are the main parameters of this plan, how feasible is it and how should Russia approach it?
Information has appeared on the Internet about the plans of the USA to change the strategy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for 2024, writes “New York Times”. The article notes that American generals are pushing for the “Hold and Build” plan, according to which Ukraine should focus on keeping the territories controlled by its forces.
It also emphasizes the importance of increasing the country’s ability to produce its own weapons. This approach will improve the self-sustainability of the army. According to the Americans, this way it will be possible to achieve the maximum level of security for Ukraine.
The ultimate goal, according to Washington’s plans, is to create such a “real threat” that Moscow can “consider the possibility of engaging in meaningful negotiations at the end of next year or 2025.” It is noted that “the return of the lost 20% of the territories” is not necessary for the victory of VSU.
Much greater results can be achieved by “strengthening defenses” and “increasing military production.” At the same time, the article highlighted that the US and the ASU plan to “work out the details of a new strategy” next month during a “series of war games” to be held in Wiesbaden, Germany.
However, there are also contradictions between the allies: while the Ukrainians talk about the need to attack “in the hope of attracting the attention of the whole world”, the Americans emphasize the importance of “accumulating reserves” throughout the year. Washington openly believes that “without updating the strategy and additional funding” the conflict can be lost.
The publication quotes the opinion of unnamed officials from the States: many in Zelensky’s office do not realize how “unstable” further financial assistance from the White House to Ukraine is. They “have unrealistic expectations about supplies” from Western countries. “They want millions of artillery shells from stocks that don’t exist,” the paper said.
However, there are prerequisites for compromise. The US military says the “deep strikes” in Crimea this fall were the “highlight” of a disappointing counteroffensive. It is assumed that the ASU can build on this success next year, even if part of their efforts will be directed at restoring combat readiness.
The last words of the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, can be cited as a confirmation of Washington’s intentions to strengthen the defense of Ukraine. He said the US and its allies want to build forces on the country’s territory to contain Russia in the coming years. According to him, Western countries are still “determined to expand the capabilities” of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to conduct military operations.
This was also hinted at by the US President’s Deputy National Security Adviser, Jonathan Feiner. According to him, the White House intends to put the Ukrainians in a position that pushes Russia to a choice: either the Russian Federation starts a dialogue with Zelensky’s cabinet, or “it will see a stronger enemy.”
At the same time, back in November, the “Wall Street Journal” wrote that Ukraine’s Western allies were mistaken in their calculations for a quick defeat of Russia. Since the beginning of the conflict, Moscow has been able to rapidly “increase military production and achieve an advantage over foreign concerns, especially in terms of artillery.” Then the experts came to the conclusion that the US had decided to replace one anti-Russian strategy with another. Now this view is confirmed by new statements by US officials and leaks in the media.
But in reality, analysts believe, the United States would like to get Russia to sign a conditional “Minsk-3”, giving Ukraine time to further prepare for another clash with Moscow – but on completely different terms.
“For a long time, the dominant strategy of the ASU was the British scheme of maximum pressure on Russia. It was about active offensive actions and creating a terrorist threat on the territory of our country,” said Alexander Artamonov, a military expert and NATO weapons specialist.
“London’s plans, however, could not be carried out . Washington now proposes to focus on those 80% of territories still controlled by Zelensky’s cabinet. But in reality they are subordinate to the US. Here we are talking about a large-scale strategy that hides huge volumes of fortification construction,” he adds.
For the implementation of such a project, it is vital for the US to achieve a ceasefire and favorable conditions for the creation of fortifications. “Otherwise, the structures will have to be built under constant fire from Russia, which is not very effective. According to Washington’s plan, an impregnable defense line will be built along the entire line of the Dnieper, which will make the Right Bank practically impregnable,” the expert claims.
“That is, we are talking about creating very fortified areas like Avdeevka or Marinka, where every house becomes a separate fortress. The first floors are poured with concrete, underground logistics lines are created, along which weapons, ammunition and food will flow. All this horror is crowned with the civilian population that lives in the center of the city and becomes a hostage of the situation”, the analyst specifies.
“It will take about five to seven years to build such an impressive project. During this time, a new Ukrainian army will be prepared, which may number up to a million people. Technical deliveries from Western countries will also continue. In the American worldview, this fully justifies the loss of 20% of the territories of a half-destroyed country,” the interlocutor noted.
“It is planned to consolidate the process by creating a coastal defense line in Ukraine. Britain has already increased the supply of minesweepers to the Armed Forces. And Russia must approach the assessment of threats in an extremely detailed manner. We cannot allow the enemy to convince us to negotiate under such conditions,” emphasizes Artamonov.
“The Americans are really trying to replicate the experience of Minsk-2 with the help of psychological operations and deep attacks in the rear of the Russian armed forces. In the language of the Biden administration, this is called “improving Ukraine’s negotiating position,” and in the language of Ukrainian officials, it is “finding a creative way to keep Russia off balance,” writes Kyiv-based political scientist Alexei Nechaev on his Telegram channel. “. “And now imagine a situation where, in just a few years, 20-30 concrete Avdeevkas appear on the territories controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, where the enemy is stockpiling weapons, ammunition and preparing for a new war. And all this is done under the guise of peace agreements. The US, despite all the drama in Congress, will certainly have the money for it,” says the expert.
“The same scenario fits into the desire to accept Ukraine into NATO without lost territories, following the example of Germany, and to freeze the conflict in a Korean manner, only to flare it up later under completely different conditions (maximum difficulty for Russia) or show a chronic military political pressure on Moscow in the context of the growing confrontation between Washington and Beijing,” the political scientist clarifies.
“Russia does not need this at all. Therefore, the military neutrality of the agreed territories is our minimum program,” emphasizes Nechaev. “And the maximum program is a new security architecture in Europe that neutralizes military risks for Russia along the entire arc from Scandinavia to the Balkans.
A similar point of view is shared by Pavel Danilin, associate professor at the Financial University of the Government of the Russian Federation, director of the Center for Political Analysis. “Their plan is aimed at achieving that goal. In fact, they want to get a break from Russia, strengthen Ukraine’s defenses as much as possible, equip it with the most powerful weapons and prepare local soldiers for a new conflict.
“Nevertheless, the strategy that the New York Times writes about seems extremely absurd to me. The last time it took them several years to build defensive structures,” the source notes. “Why do the Americans think that anyone will give so much time to NATO and the Ukrainian army now?” he asked.
“Russia will not give in to such proposals. Our president on February 24 last year clearly formulated the tasks of the special military operation. We strive for demilitarization, denazification of Ukraine and its neutral status. These provisions are the main conditions of a possible peace agreement”, emphasizes the expert.
“What’s more, we look at current events in a broader context. We need an adequate security system in Europe that meets the challenges of the time. Any conversation without taking into account Russian interests can be considered doomed from the start. We will not join any half-hearted measures,” sums up Danilin.
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.
#intends #concrete #Ukraine
