Experts say that it is important to maintain close relations in the triangle of USA-Europe-Ukraine after the summit in Vilnius.
According to reports from the International Security Forum in Aspen, USA, the United States is supposedly dissatisfied with the slow pace of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and is visibly nervous about it. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal writes that in the West, it was allegedly known in advance that Ukraine was insufficiently prepared for the success of the counteroffensive.
In the same article, it is mentioned that the United States’ indecisiveness and apparent delays in supplying the necessary weapons to Ukraine increasingly contradict the sentiments of European leaders. In recent months, there has been a growing confidence among European leaders that Ukraine’s complete victory over Russia is crucial for ensuring the continent’s security.
Experts told Telegraf (Ukrainian news website) about the developments concerning the armament of Ukraine by its partners and whether Europeans have indeed started questioning this issue.
About patience and lost time
“In the transatlantic coalition of countries supporting Ukraine, there is indeed a certain dynamic. It is critically important for us to maintain this coalition. Who exactly will lead it is an important question, but not the main one,” Volodymyr Dubovyk, Director of the Center for International Studies and Associate Professor of International Relations at Odesa Mechnykov University, who also teaches in the USA, shared the following comment.
Lately, the expert continues, Europe has indeed taken the initiative in terms of rhetoric and supplying certain types of weapons, such as long-range missiles.
See also: Why is the “Israeli model,” which the USA proposes for Ukraine, impossible?
“However, the role of the USA remains colossal. We see significant batches of weapons constantly being provided to Ukraine by it. As for the pace of the offensive, Ukrainian partners are concerned about the quantity of artillery shells being used, as their stocks are depleting. Sensible experts and military personnel understand that an offensive operation of this scale requires patience. It is crucial to maintain close and trusting relations in the USA-Europe-Ukraine triangle after the summit in Vilnius,” emphasizes Volodymyr Dubovyk.
Ukraine’s Army General, former head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service (from 2005 to 2010), Mykola Malomuzh, believes that both Ukraine and its partners did not adequately prepare for systematic offensive operations in the east and south of Ukraine.
“It would have been relevant to do this at the end of winter — the beginning of spring when the Russian army had not yet been able to concentrate its main forces and reserves, had not established final strongholds, had not conducted extensive mining (which would have been difficult on frozen ground), had not regrouped new units, and had not modernized tanks, missile systems, and rockets. Unfortunately, we were not able to create striking groups before the beginning of spring, and our partners did not effectively organize the supply of necessary weapons and equipment in sufficient quantities,” emphasizes the expert.
According to him, it concerns long-range artillery (the same Storm Shadow missiles were only received in May, and ATACMS, which were requested a long time ago, have not been received), larger groups of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, radar systems, and electronic warfare systems (EW). Obviously, Ukraine also lacks air defense systems. While Kyiv is somewhat covered, the situation is much worse with Odesa. Additional systems are needed to cover the front from Russian aircraft, helicopters, and drones.
“All this equipment was well-known to our partners. Not to mention modern fighters, which we have been requesting almost from the first days of the large-scale invasion by Russia,” emphasizes Mykola Malomuzh.
The offensive format is not as effective as it could be
It is regrettable that Ukraine is not only provided with everything necessary but it is also given outdated specimens that are being decommissioned from service.
“Why only 3rd or 4th, and not 5th or 6th generation? Why not hundreds, but only tens or even just a few units?” the expert raises the question. “Perhaps, instead of individual units, we should have acquired dozens (preferably close to a hundred) of the same air defense missile systems like Patriot, IRIS-T, SAMP/T Mamba — then the situation would have been completely different,” added an expert.
With such a substantial number of systems, Ukraine could have dealt with Russian missiles that it failed to intercept and the drones that managed to penetrate this layered defense. They could have been shot down or disoriented by the radar and EW systems.
“And our offensive format, if we had all the aforementioned capabilities, would look completely different than it does now. However, bureaucracy, fears (like ‘let’s not provoke Russia,’ which often resonated in American and European cabinets), intentional or unintentional delays, all hindered these efforts. As a result, we are now facing difficulties, of course,” the expert concludes.
See also: Shield for Europe: Why the initiative for joint air defense system divided allies
According to Mykola Malomuzh, the Ukrainian tactic of waiting has also become problematic. There has been too much prolonged deliberation over certain options, hesitancy in implementing unconventional systematic measures where the Russian army was weak. Opportunities were missed to strike from the rear or flanks, delivering missile attacks in combination with other systems. This could have confused Russian troops, forcing them to retreat at least in some areas.
“Yes, over the last approximately one and a half months, we have recaptured a number of positions, created a challenging situation for the Russian army around Bakhmut and on several other fronts, including Zaporizhzhia. But these are all tough, exhausting battles. There should be comprehensive, well-prepared operations that disorient Russian military and allow for unexpected strikes,” says the expert.
Not just a single strike but comprehensive, simultaneous strikes from different directions. Both at the strategic level (targeting reserves) and tactical level (directly on the battlefield), and so on,” explains the general. “I believe that this is planned for the future. In a month, two, three… However, the effect will not be the same as when Russians were not so entrenched, not as fortified as they are now.”
Originally posted by Andrii Pitonov on Telegraf. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
See also: Cluster munitions for Ukraine. Weapons for the offensive
