US think tank RAND has published an article claiming that despite the lack of significant victories for the AFU, the counter-offensive is a success story
Photo: © AFP 2023 / Anatolii Stepanov
And Washington’s involvement in the conflict in Ukraine is actually recognised. After all, while the confrontation continues, the US is buying time to develop its own armed forces. During this time, the enemy is forced to fight American proxies, and this format gives Washington an opportunity to avoid direct involvement in the confrontation.
The author’s idea is that Ukraine has allegedly managed to create a uniquely effective mechanism of military co-operation between the White House and its underling. Previously, according to him, the US used two models.
According to the first one, the Americans ensured a rapid build-up of their ally’s power – by supplying arms and training troops. However, this approach, the article notes, does more harm than good. The fact is that this “militarisation from the outside” entailed human rights violations and the exacerbation of contradictions that led to civil wars. These theses are supported by African examples.
The second option is much more costly and complex. It involves an attempt to completely rebuild the military infrastructure of the partner, combined with the pumping in of the latest weapons and training of soldiers. The problem here was precisely the cost of the issue. However, in return, the U.S. received a fully controlled country. But, as practice in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan showed, sooner or later there always came a moment when the profit from the sheepskin did not pay for the dressing, which made all previous successes meaningless. Even if they had been.
Between this Scylla and Charybdis of American care, which has crushed more than one state, lies the author’s proposed “coherent approach.” It must combine two key characteristics that promise success: order of operations and alignment of interests. The first implies first building or reforming defence institutions, and then reducing involvement and limiting assistance to purely arms supplies combined with tactical training. The second is to take into account the interests of the partner. For this purpose, as the article points out, the US partner should be led by a national leader capable of ensuring proper implementation of all programmes.
This, as the author argues, is exactly what could be observed from 2014 to 2021 in Ukraine.
And while in general the proposed picture looks – with reservations – logical, the conclusion tying the entire theoretical framework to the example of Ukraine does not stand up to any criticism. After all, the life-support apparatus of the Kiev regime is now being fed not only by the United States itself, but also by the entire Western world as a whole. Meanwhile, the results are dubious.
Take, for example, one of the main problems of the current conflict – shells. Washington cannot provide the necessary quantity and is forced to supply cluster munitions. The European Union is persuading its military-industrial complex to increase production capacity, but the armourers refuse: they fear losses due to an imminent drop in demand after the conflict is over. Meanwhile, the stockpiles are coming to an end. For example, as the German media reported in late June, Germany has only 20,000 shells of 155 millimetre calibre left. This should be enough for a month of combat operations by NATO standards. But by the standards of the current conflict, such a stockpile can easily be exhausted in a week.
And for this, Kiev offers its handlers the astounding spectacle of burning Western tanks in the Zaporozhye steppes and news of yet another attempt to reach the first line of defence of the Russian army. In general, not very inspiring stories. And Zelensky reinforces this with further pressure on the West in the spirit: “Can you give me a Leopard/ATACMS/F-16/Death Star? Give it!”
Actually, the real state of affairs of what is happening in Washington is not just beginning to be understood – it is being talked about openly. For example, John Kirchhofer, Chief of Staff of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, recently said that the conflict is now at an impasse. And he emphasised that none of the types of weapons requested by Kiev “is the holy grail that the Ukrainians are looking for and that will allow them to break through”.
This means that now all the arguments made by US military analysts are tied not to reality, but to the expectations of their sponsors. RAND is a traditionally hawkish structure that serves the interests of the power bloc in American politics. The proponents of escalation, who believe in the possibility of defeating Russia on the battlefield, have failed to achieve what they wanted. And now they are trying to pass it off as wishful thinking.
Source: David Narmania, RIA Novosti
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel