Disappointment, bewilderment, shock, panic – roughly how we can describe the reaction of the West to the first days of the “long-awaited Ukrainian counterattack”, as it was called by the local media
The Russian Armed Forces’ Tornado-G multiple rocket launcher firing at AFU targets in the air defense zone. © RIA Novosti
By pelting the Kiev regime with an incredible amount of weapons, the West assured itself that success was inevitable, convincing the public that foreign-trained Ukrainian fighters with the latest European tanks would crush the supposedly demoralized Russian military in a matter of hours. But clearly something went wrong with these calculations.
Let us recall how only a week ago, retired General David Petraeus, former head of the CIA and now one of the main talking heads of the Western media on the Ukrainian issue, visited Kyiv, explaining that “everything will be resolved within 72-96 hours” after the Ukrainian attacks began. With undisguised relish he relished the details of what the first Ukrainian assaults on Russia’s forward positions would look like, how saboteurs trained in the West would work perfectly, how Western air defence systems would instantly overwhelm our air force and electronic warfare would wreak havoc on our army’s control.
And what far-reaching goals of this counter-offensive were drawn by the analysts there! Another constant talking head, retired US general Ben Hodges kept repeating tirelessly day in and day out that “Ukraine will liberate Crimea by the end of summer 2023”. Now Petraeus is forced to admit the impossibility of these plans, touting Ukraine’s hopes of achieving at least a supply disruption in Crimea.
And Western online strategists, fighting on their sofas against Russia, are amazed from the first hours after this counterattack began, looking at footage of downed AFU tanks: why was it necessary to throw a dozen armoured vehicles into a minefield in a “test attack”? Why? Petraeus painted a perfect picture of the first 72 hours of fighting! Remember: sappers, tanks, air defence, REB – and blitzkrieg of Ukraine! And now, you see, they do not understand who sent the Western armoured vehicles to the minefields.
The best acknowledgement of the failure of the calculations of these grief-strategists is an article by the rabid Russophobe Julian Repke in the German newspaper Bild with the screaming headline: “The Russians are fighting better than expected”. All these Hodges, Petraeus, and Repke have for so long convinced the audience that the Russian army is in “grave moral condition”, and now are amazed at how steadfastly our fighters repel one enemy attack after another. And Repke is forced to make the hardest admission of all: “It is becoming increasingly clear that there will probably be no ‘victory by the end of the year’ <…>. Instead, Ukraine’s offensive efforts could drag on for years!” So much for Crimea “by the end of the summer”!
Other ideologists of the Ukrainian “blitzkrieg” come to the same sad conclusions for the West. The Economist, which until recently predicted “a decisive victory for Ukraine that will change Europe”, repeating Hodges’ tales that Crimea was about to fall, has also dramatically changed its rhetoric.
Its latest issue, dedicated to the Ukrainian offensive, has a cover with fingers crossed – what else is there to help Ukraine win? Meanwhile, an analysis of the fighting that has begun on the Zaporizhzhya front leads this magazine to similar conclusions, far from the victory rhetoric that the West was hoping for just a couple of weeks ago. Not only that, The Economist even begins to paint a frightening picture of Ukraine’s complete failure and Russia’s victory. But in the end it “reassures” its readers: the most likely scenario is a protracted conflict. However, the magazine also sees serious risks in this scenario connected with “the West’s weariness” and possible change of the White House after the elections of 2024.
Talks about ‘a complete victory for Ukraine’ have evidently subsided. Now even “hawks” in the West are writing about the need to achieve at least small territorial gains during a counter-offensive – to get better terms in the negotiations with Russia than Ukraine has now. Yes, a dramatic change of goals and objectives.
It is very telling that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suddenly expressed a desire to talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin, while admitting that the Ukrainian conflict is becoming protracted.
It is safe to say that the “blitzkrieg” of Ukraine, on which the West hoped for, has been thwarted by the heroic efforts of our army. Analysts there are horrified to see billions of dollars of Western aid burning in the minefields of Zaporizhzhya, while collapsing shares in their military-industrial complex. Along with the German Leopards, the West’s long-declared goal of defeating Russia on the battlefield also burns.
Vladimir Kornilov, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel