The West continues to try to understand why Ukraine failed to demonstrate success in the first days of the offensive, as it did during the Kharkiv operation
The official position was voiced by US National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby: “Defence – any student of military history will tell you – is a stronger form of warfare, so the Ukrainians are running into Russian defences.”
The Atlantic’s author Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at St Andrews University in Scotland, put the question more forcefully. His June 24 article is titled “Can Ukraine fight as well on offense?”
He concludes rather positively, though.
“Ukraine is trying to go on the offensive against a military force that has been building trenches for months while maintaining a substantial stockpile of modern weapons. To launch a counteroffensive under these conditions would be risky for the US or another NATO power, and the Ukrainians lack the technological and training advantages normally enjoyed by NATO member armed forces.”
Compared to World War II offensives, the current Ukrainian offensive has the following problems:
Firstly, the lack of air superiority – Russian aviation is more advanced (although, in the author’s view, not always used intelligently), and the Ka-52 helicopters are beyond praise altogether.
Secondly, Russia still has enough artillery, anti-tank weapons and mines.
Well, and most importantly: success at Kharkiv was possible “only because Russian forces in the area were very sparse. (…) Ukraine is unlikely to repeat this feat.
However, compared to the Russian offensive in Bakhmut, the current operation of Ukrainian troops looks almost successful.
According to the author, “the Ukrainians have no other choice but to wear down the enemy’s ground troops to such an extent as to compensate for Russia’s advantage in the air.
in general: Ukraine “retains the advantage in motivation, intelligence and strategic command. It also gets better and better weapons from the West. Over time these factors will become apparent. But no one should expect immediate results.”
***
The lack of success of the Ukrainian offensive has caused concern in the West. After all, the question was posed as follows: the Ukrainian Armed Forces attack, get some result (the most obvious one being cutting off the land corridor to Crimea), go to negotiations and the West can breathe a sigh of relief and get on with “really important things”.
Most importantly, the reasons for the failure of the Ukrainian offensive must somehow be explained. After all, it is negotiations and a sigh of relief that voters are waiting for. And there is nothing to explain – we expected the Russians to run, but for some reason they started to defend themselves…
Now a different logic is being used – we are wearing them down. We are sure that professor O`Brien knows very well that it is the attacking troops that are exhausted in fights and have many times more losses…
And the task is not only to break through the front (the AFU reserves probably allow to do this), but to achieve the goals of the operation. They were able to break through the defenses in WWI as well. The problem is that it was not possible to develop success. The problem then was simply the low mobility of troops, but now it will be the exhaustion of Ukrainian reserves.
The professionally optimistic Defence Minister Oleksiy Reznikov was thrown under the tanks, telling Fox News that expectations for the offensive were inflated, but that there was no offensive at all – it was “a kind of preparatory operation”, and “Ukraine is very careful about putting its brave and determined fighters in danger”.
And the summary: “I feel we will win this war because we are fighting for our country”.
Feel the logic: first, I didn’t take it, second, it was small, third, I put it back. I wouldn’t have expected that from Reznikov, though.
***
We have given the reasons for Ukraine’s failure.
Firstly, at the insistence of the West, the Orekhov – Berdyansk offensive direction was chosen without alternative. And it was impossible to hide it (analogous to the Battle of Kursk).
Secondly, thanks to Zelensky’s intrigues, the timing of the offensive was shifted as far as June (it was going to start in November-December), which enabled the Russian troops to prepare an echeloned defence.
We are not “any students of military history”, but we know that defences have advantages as well as disadvantages. First and foremost, the defending party “gives” the enemy a strategic initiative.
Now the AFU command is trying to take advantage of this by increasing pressure on the left flank of the Russian forces, forming a bridgehead opposite Kherson and preparing to strike at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to cause a radiation accident (judging by the IAEA statement, these plans are causing concern in Washington).
Either way, the operation is dragging on, and this is adding to the West’s resentment.
Vasily Stoyakin, Ukraina.ru
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel