Counteroffensive Blame Game

As the frontline goes into stalemate mode the world looks for someone to blame. The real bad news is that this failed counteroffensive will rubber-stamp Ukraine partition and Putler's land theft.

The latest edition of the Washington Post, shared an article that stirred social media and was extensively quoted by almost every news agency globally.

The Washington Post journalists connected with over 30 people familiar with the negotiations and preparations for summer Ukrainian counteroffensive. The text…

"provides new insights and previously unreported details about America’s deep involvement in the military planning behind the counteroffensive and the factors that contributed to its disappointments. The second part of this two-part account examines how the battle unfolded on the ground over the summer and fall, and the widening fissures between Washington and Kyiv."

The Washington Post authors discuss the miscalculations in US and Ukrainian offensive planning:

"Ukrainian, U.S. and British military officers held eight major tabletop war games to build a campaign plan. But Washington miscalculated the extent to which Ukraine’s forces could be transformed into a Western-style fighting force in a short period — especially without giving Kyiv air power integral to modern militaries."

According to the Washington Post report, there were significant differences between the US and Ukraine regarding the strategy and timing of this counteroffensive:

"U.S. and Ukrainian officials sharply disagreed at times over strategy, tactics and timing. The Pentagon wanted the assault to begin in mid-April to prevent Russia from continuing to strengthen its lines. The Ukrainians hesitated, insisting they weren’t ready without additional weapons and training."

The differences referred to the planned directions of the attack. Based on what the Washington Post wrote, US officials suggested Ukraine should launch a concentrated attack to try to split Russian forces through the axis of Melitopol, aiming for the Sea of Azov:

"U.S. military officials were confident that a mechanized frontal attack on Russian lines was feasible with the troops and weapons that Ukraine had. The simulations concluded that Kyiv’s forces, in the best case, could reach the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian troops in the south in 60 to 90 days."

The Washington Post provides a map of two alternative versions of the planned attack: three separate directions as proposed by the Ukrainians, versus one suggested by the US:

"The map showed Ukraine's intention to attack at three distinct points along the 600-mile front, contrasting the U.S. recommendation of a focused assault towards Melitopol."

Interestingly, the authors note that the US military's assessment differed from that of the US Intelligence community:

"The U.S. intelligence community had a more downbeat view than the U.S. military, assessing that the offensive had only a 50-50 chance of success given the stout, multilayered defenses Russia had built up over the winter and spring."

The overall situation is mildly described as a stalemate:

"As winter approaches, and the front lines freeze into place, Ukraine’s most senior military officials acknowledge that the war has reached a stalemate."

But this term might be too gentle. In military terms, it's an operational stalemate indeed. However, the broader picture is even more pessimistic. Russia is again getting away with a massive land grab. This is akin to a second partition of Ukraine unfolding before us. As Central European history teaches, such fragmentation of states often leads to their eventual erasure from the political map. Poland, my home country, experienced this, disappearing for 123 years after its third partition, followed by a brief resurgence and then 50 years under Soviet control. History is repeating itself, with Russia, on its path to rebuild the Soviet Empire, preparing its next moves. Recently, Putin announced targeting Latvia under the pretext of protecting "Russian people" living there:

BBC Putin RUSSIA "There are probably quite a few now. If they pursue such a policy against people who wanted to live in this or that country, worked there, created some welfare for this country and these people are treated like dirt then eventually such countries will face the same dirt like attitude inside their own countries."

The Washington Post article is another major media event, following a series of articles hinting at international acceptance of Ukraine's partition. We've already discussed on our program a German BILD article suggesting that Ukraine should accept freezing a conflict along the current lines, Gen Zaluzny’s piece for The Economist, and the latest Zielinski interview for the AP agency. All seem to be prepping international public opinion to accept the partition. The only unclear element is Jens Stoltenberg's recent comment hinting at impending bad news from Ukraine:

Stoltenberg "We have to be prepared for bad news. Wars develop in phases, but we have to support Ukraine in both good and bad times."

The truly bad news is that the US, a Western powerhouse, seems to have decided not to invest further in Ukrainian efforts to reclaim Crimea. The upcoming US presidential election, along with the Israel-Hamas conflict, Iranian-sponsored attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea, and tensions over Taiwan, make continued support too risky and politically costly. The price will be paid by the people of Ukraine and other states bordering Russia. The imminent start of official negotiations is almost confirmed by Sergey Lavrov's attendance at a meeting and Putin's presence at the G20 summit, acting as if nothing significant had occurred.