 Ukrainian forces fire toward Russian positions in the Kharkiv region last month. (Heidi Levine for The Washington Post) |
Everyone expected Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russian positions to be tough. But perhaps not as tough as it has been. After more than two months of attritional warfare across a vast front line stretching from the country’s east to the south, Kyiv’s forces have yet to forge any major breakthroughs. While exacting a grievous toll on the invading Russians, they have sustained significant casualties and found themselves bogged down by a thicket of Russian minefields, trenches and other fortifications. Their gains have been only incremental, no matter the billions of dollars in Western aid invested in preparing Ukraine’s push to reclaim lost territory. The difficulties, my colleagues reported at the end of last week, have led the U.S. intelligence community to conclude that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will fall short of at least one of its key goals — reaching the key southeastern city of Melitopol. It is “a finding that, should it prove correct, would mean Kyiv won’t fulfill its principal objective of severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea in this year’s push,” my colleagues John Hudson and Alex Horton wrote. Melitopol, which straddles two key highways and a railroad line, is seen as the gateway to Crimea. Recapturing it would cripple Russia’s ability to reinforce the peninsula and would deliver a demoralizing blow, creating myriad strategic headaches for the Kremlin and opening the door for Ukraine to press further toward Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014. Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, have insisted that their troops will reclaim every inch of Ukrainian land lost to Russia, including Crimea. In public, Western politicians and diplomats have embraced the vision, reiterating that their governments would back Ukraine in its defense for as long as it takes. In private, conversations are darker and more skeptical, with many officials gloomy about Ukraine’s prospects to expel the Russian invaders. The new U.S. intelligence assessment reflects a less-spoken, but emerging consensus. On Friday, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan attempted to play down its significance. “Over the course of the past two years, there have been a lot of analyses of how this war would unfold coming from a lot of quarters,” he told reporters at Camp David ahead of a U.S.-convened summit with South Korea and Japan. “And we’ve seen numerous changes in those analyses over time as dynamic battlefield conditions change.” But U.S. officials and their European counterparts are increasingly more circumspect about what they hope Ukraine’s counteroffensive can achieve. “I had said a couple of months ago that this offensive was going to be long, it’s going to be bloody, it’s going to be slow,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Post last week. “And that’s exactly what it is: long, bloody and slow, and it’s a very, very difficult fight.” “To commit our reserve forces we need to be sure that the pathways are clear,” Yuriy Sak, an adviser to the Ukrainian minister of defense, told my colleague Susannah George. “We would rather go slower and make sure that we preserve the lives of our troops.” An analysis from the Institute for the Study of War published after my colleagues’ report said that “it is premature to make assessments about the overall success of ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive operations occurring along several lines of advance toward several different apparent objectives.” Away from the front lines, the war is intensifying as well. While Ukraine has stepped up drone attacks into Russian territory, Russia continues its indiscriminate campaign of missile strikes on Ukrainian civilian areas. On Saturday, a Russian attack on a public square in the northern city of Chernihiv killed at least seven people, including a child. Zelensky, who was on a trip to Northern Europe in search of further military assistance, vowed to “respond tangibly.” The reality of this difficult fight has led to some unusually blunt admissions. A top NATO official, Stian Jenssen, triggered a Ukrainian outcry after he was quoted at a public event in Norway suggesting that he could see a scenario where Ukraine received membership in the Western military alliance if it accepted some territorial concessions to Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, for whom Jenssen is chief of staff, had to walk back his subordinate’s remarks. “It is the Ukrainians, and only the Ukrainians, who can decide when there are conditions in place for negotiations, and who can decide at the negotiating table what is an acceptable solution,” he said, echoing rhetoric that Western officials have routinely put forward when confronted with questions about the endgame in Ukraine. But Ukrainian concessions appear to be something many in Western countries are willing to countenance. The U.S. role in supporting Ukraine will probably become more polarizing at home as the war drags on and the 2024 elections draw nearer. Some polls now show a majority of American voters, especially Republicans, are skeptical of additional aid to Kyiv. That’s being picked up by some of those vying to be the Republican presidential nominee. “Our goal should not be for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to lose. Our goal should be for America to win,” Vivek Ramaswamy, a surprise dark horse in the race, told CNN on Thursday, suggesting American investment in Ukraine’s fight for survival was pushing Russia and China closer together. “I would freeze the current lines of control, and that would leave parts of the Donbas region with Russia,” Ramaswamy said. “I would also further make a commitment that NATO will not admit Ukraine to NATO.” Such a proposal explains why the Biden administration thinks Putin is invested in fighting this war through to the 2024 election. “Putin knows that the leading Republican candidate for president next year, former president Donald Trump, would end U.S. support for Ukraine, and that there are others like him in Europe,” wrote Tom Malinowski, a former Democratic congressman and U.S. diplomat. “A forever war favors Putin, not Ukraine.” In his op-ed, Malinowski suggested the best pragmatic solution for the Ukrainian endgame would combine supporting Kyiv’s counteroffensive as far as it goes until some point next year before the major NATO summit in Washington. There, the Western military alliance would commit to extending membership and treaty protections to Ukraine over the territory it controls. That would mark an implicit concession of territory to Russia, but make real a strategic nightmare for Putin of converting a nation whose sovereignty he has long dismissed into another strong NATO member on his borders. Talk of endgames in the war, though, remains fanciful. So far, no Russian commitment to good-faith negotiations materialized. “No one is seriously considering or discussing a diplomatic end to the war: a notion that looks to many high-profile Russians like a personal threat, given all the war crimes that their country has committed and the responsibility that the entire elite now bears for the carnage in Ukraine,” wrote Tatiana Stanovaya in Foreign Affairs, referring to the consensus view among the Kremlin elite. “Peace for Ukraine must at some point involve negotiations with Russia,” wrote Brookings scholar Constanze Stelzenmüller in a recent essay. “But given the Kremlin’s implacable attitude, the burden of proof for the credibility of its negotiating offers would be extremely high. An armistice based on a freezing of the status quo in the form of continued Russian occupation of Crimea and the Donbas would reward Putin’s aggression and merely pause hostilities.” To avoid “the risk that an end to the war becomes an interregnum between wars,” she concluded, “only the strongest guarantees — a clear, constructive, and hopefully short path to NATO and EU membership — can satisfy Ukraine’s security interests, and indeed those of the Western alliance.” A total diplomatic victory for Kyiv could help make up for the absence of a total military one.
| 
Email
