2023-11-11 09:34:58
Valeriy Zalushny, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, made a gloomy statement in the British Economist: After the Ukrainians had long tried to push back Russia’s occupying troops in the south of their country, there would be “no nice, deep breakthrough” for the time being. Instead, there is a threat of a “stalemate”, a “fight of positions” like in the First World War. This will “use Russia” because it can “renew its military” and “threaten the Ukrainian state itself.”
Konrad Schuller
Political correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung in Berlin.
A contradiction immediately arose: President Volodymyr Zelensky denied that there was a stalemate, and his advisor Ihor Zhovkwa warned against scaremongering.
The FAS asked NATO generals, diplomats and MPs what was now true. Most found General Saluschnyj’s analysis to be consistent – with one exception: a representative of the federal government said that from Berlin’s point of view, what was “important” was that the President of Ukraine did not recognize a stalemate. One can assume that the government derives from this that it does not need to help Kiev any more than previously planned.
But if there is no prospect of an advance, Kiev’s current war plan would be invalid. The Washington Post reported what it probably looked like. Accordingly, William Burns, the head of the American secret service CIA, heard in Kiev in the summer that the Ukrainians wanted to advance from the north on the narrow land bridge to occupied Crimea. Because the only other Russian access to the peninsula, the Kerch Bridge, is vulnerable, Moscow would then have to fear losing its supply lines to Crimea. The connection to the troops on the Ukrainian mainland who are supplied from there would also be cut off. In the end, Crimea would become a “hostage” of Kiev, and President Vladimir Putin would have to make concessions. “Russia will only negotiate if it feels threatened,” Burns is said to have heard.
A dramatic picture of the situation
Now no one is talking about a quick advance any more. On Wednesday, the Federal Intelligence Service described its view to German MPs. Participants said afterwards that they had the impression of a “dramatic” situation. The balance of power seems to be “turning”. The initiative is slowly passing to Russia.
Stalemate or no stalemate? – Ukrainian President Zelensky (front) and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Zalushny (left) are divided. : Image: Reuters
At NATO things are less bleak. A representative of the alliance responded on Thursday to the question of whether General Saluschnyj was correct or his president with the word “both”. The president is right when he says there is no “standoff.” After all, the Ukrainian army is still advancing in places, even if only “minimal”. On the other hand, General Zalushnyj correctly described the situation “on the ground”. The situation is actually reminiscent of the First World War, and “unfortunately” it will remain that way for some time.
At this point, none of the Western three-star generals that the FAS asked for their assessment contradicted. Ben Hodges, former head of American land forces in Europe, calls Saluzhny’s analysis “sober and clear.” Heinrich Brauss, former NATO Assistant Secretary General, finds the Ukrainian general’s comrade’s findings “depressing” and adds that if this stalemate persists, Putin could “simply wait until the Republicans come back to power in Washington” or until the West turned away because other conflicts like the one in the Middle East were demanding its resources. Then Russia will have “all the time in the world” to strengthen its military so that it can “go on the attack again.”
“The Ukrainians can still win,” says General Hodges
How could this happen? Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute says: “The breakthrough did not happen because the Ukrainians were trained to fight according to NATO doctrine without being given the means to do so.” It could have succeeded if the West had “provided more material more quickly would have delivered”.
General Brauss agrees. For example, it was a “fatal mistake” not to “supply enough armored vehicles on time” to Ukraine. If the German Leopards and other equipment had arrived earlier, the Russians would not have had the time after their defeats at the end of 2022 to dig in to positions described by NATO as “the strongest in history.” General Erhard Bühler, former head of NATO’s Allied Joint Forces Command in Brunssum, the Netherlands, adds that it wasn’t just armored vehicles that were missing. “The weapons for fighting in depth were also not there” – that is, cruise missiles and rockets with which the Ukrainians could have destroyed Russian supplies and command centers. “The British Storm Shadows only arrived shortly before the offensive. The American ATACMS is only months after its launch, and the German Taurus cruise missile isn’t even here yet.”
#Ukraine #win #war