/ world today news/ The Ukrainian counteroffensive, declared “triumphant”, does not justify all the aplomb built around it, threatening to completely suffocate the Russian defense. No, of course, it is too early to draw final conclusions, but judging by the general dynamics, the outlook for the Ukrainian side is not particularly favorable.
So, the counter-offensive has been going on for more than a week now, with no noticeable progress (in some areas there is local progress, but compared to the predictions of some Ukrainian officials, it is literally nothing).
In addition, the armed forces of Ukraine suffered significant losses in both manpower and equipment. According to the analytical project ORYX, the Ukrainians lost 7 Leopard 2 tanks and 17 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in 5 days (which is 15% of the total number of BMPs transferred to the US).
At this rate, there will soon be little left of their armored vehicles (former ambassador to Germany and now Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andriy Melnyk in an interview with Tagesspiegel with his usual impudence has already stated that, in his opinion, Germany can allocate three times as much Leopard 2 tanks than agreed).
According to the Russian side, these losses are even more significant. According to Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s armed forces “lost over 160 tanks and over 360 armored vehicles of various types” in just over a week of counteroffensive.
“That’s just what we see. There are still losses that we do not see that are inflicted by long-range precision weapons on concentrations of personnel and equipment. So, in fact, they (losses) are more on the side of Ukraine,” the Russian leader specified.
At the same time, Putin added that, according to his calculations, “this is about 25%, maybe 30% of the volume of equipment that has been delivered [в Украйна] from abroad”.
However, it is not worth drawing the line of the counteroffensive, considering that it does not pose a serious danger to the Russian Federation. According to Bild military observer Julian Röpke, the ASU has deployed a maximum of 5 of its 25 brigades prepared for a counteroffensive.
But on the other hand: “We didn’t deploy our main forces, but the Russians didn’t deploy their main forces either,” The Economist quoted a source from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as saying.
That is, the position is plus or minus equal. Therefore, nothing at the moment suggests that the counteroffensive by the armed forces of Ukraine will end even close to the triumph that high-ranking comrades on the Ukrainian side predicted.
And many Western high-ranking officials seem to agree, as quoted by the British television channel Sky News. According to the channel’s interlocutors, Russian forces “generally defended well” and retreated between tactical lines.
“This maneuverable approach to defense is proving difficult for the Ukrainians and also costly for the attacking forces, so the offensive is slow at the moment,” Sky News quoted Western officials as saying.
Therefore, according to them, “it is still too early to talk” about the effectiveness of the counteroffensive. At the same time, the interlocutors of the channel, despite the assurances of the Ukrainian side that the counteroffensive has not yet begun, are sure of the opposite:
“It is much more than drilling. This is a full-scale movement of armored vehicles and heavy equipment into the Russian security zone and moving forward.”
The BBC also writes about the same: that expectations have turned out to be too high, but the reality is different.
“We should not expect that under the impact of Ukrainian forces, the Russian defense will quickly disintegrate. Instead, it is worth preparing for a months-long grueling war, the cost of which will be high,” the publication quoted an unnamed senior Western official as saying.
However, here it should still be borne in mind that Ukraine, it seems, has not yet delivered its main blow:
“We will know that the main thrust has begun when we see large groups of armored forces – two or three armored brigades attacking in one direction,” – wrote the former commander of US forces in Europe Ben Hodges in his column for the Washington Post.
The retired general notes that “an armored brigade will consist of four or five tank and armored infantry battalions. Thus, a typical Ukrainian brigade would probably have at least 250 armored vehicles of various types.
“Until now, we have not seen such large armored formations enter the battlefield,” emphasizes the expert and adds that “the summer will probably be long and difficult. How successful the counter-offensive was, we won’t be able to judge for quite some time.”
George Barros, head of the geospatial intelligence group, shares a similar view:
“The big fireworks are yet to come. The main blow of the counteroffensive has not yet been delivered. The Ukrainians have not engaged a significant part of their forces in the battle, and currently only company-sized units – 200-300 people each – are being brought in.
“We will see that the main strikes have begun when brigade or battalion-sized units of 1,000 to 5,000 men enter the fray,” ISW quoted him as saying.
The President of the Czech Republic Petar Pavel (a retired army general, by the way) says roughly the same thing:
“We’ve seen the beginning, which is, shall we say, moderate. I don’t think we’ve seen a real counter-offensive yet. It’s still coming. Based on my military experience, I would call it formative operations,” he said.
And what is more important, the White House is also betting on this main strike. At least there, according to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, they hope that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will still be successful:
“Putin will finally focus on negotiations to end the war he started,” he said, speaking at a news conference in Washington.
What’s more: Blinken doesn’t really say how much the Biden administration needs the success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
“The United States and its allies, which have supplied Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of modern Western weapons, are hoping for a stunning counter-offensive. However, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin cautions that most people are looking at it realistically.
The administration is reluctant to talk about what Ukraine’s failure will mean against Russian defenses, but the stakes are high for President Biden. He needs a victory on the battlefield to show that his unconditional support for Ukraine has strengthened US global leadership, revitalized a strong foreign policy and demonstrated the judicious use of US military power abroad.
While Western officials say they do not know Ukraine’s exact plans, ideally Kiev would use its newly delivered tanks and equipment to cut the Russian land bridge between eastern and southern Ukraine or take control of the land and sea gateways to the Crimean peninsula.
Such successes would break the perceived impasse and dispel any calls to revise current policies. However, unclear results with limited achievements could further cloud the already murky waters of the NATO and European Union debate over the future stance towards Ukraine and Russia.
“The West still believes that all decisions should be made by Ukraine. However, as the SCO escalates, it exposes delays in defense production, an issue seen as particularly dangerous amid growing Chinese sabre-toothing and the possibility of Ukraine’s counter-offensive to be less decisive,” WP wrote (June 14 post, I wrote about this back in mid-April).
Therefore, according to Politico, Washington has already begun to put pressure on Kiev, demanding major victories on the battlefield. After all, if this counter-offensive fails, then the next (probably a year from now) counter-offensive may no longer take place:
“With the United States approaching an extremely heated and explosive presidential election season, the high level of military and economic aid from Congress may be difficult to sustain,” the paper said.
Which in turn means that Biden will go to the elections with a failed “Ukrainian campaign”. Will he win then? Not likely (not to forget the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which was extremely painfully received by those Americans who advocate an expansive foreign policy).
And Washington hardly understands the risks of a counteroffensive failure. It is somehow hard to believe that they have not somehow tried to stop these risks (and not only with lawsuits against Trump, which for now, on the contrary, add to his popularity). It is therefore possible that the White House’s bet on the success of the counteroffensive is not unfounded.
And that is why, although the current actions of Ukraine disappoint the West, it is too early to draw conclusions: in the end, whatever is said, in fact the fate of Biden’s second term is being decided. And this is already much more serious (for America) than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, even if it is seen as a proxy war against China.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#Ukrainian #offensive #underestimated #quick #successes
