The New York Times: West is ‘perplexed’ by Ukraine’s war efforts

Ukraine’s ambitious counteroffensive against Russian forces is facing significant challenges, with concerns arising over the positioning of key troops and the effectiveness of tactical decisions, according to an exclusive report by The New York Times. Citing senior officials from the United States and the United Kingdom who requested anonymity, the report sheds light on the complexities and difficulties that Ukraine’s military is grappling with in its bid to regain territory.

The central objective of Ukraine’s counteroffensive is to establish control over the strategically important Sea of Azov and cut off Crimea from the Russian mainland. However, the New York Times highlights a key issue – the presence of a substantial Ukrainian force on the eastern front, particularly around Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), compared to the relatively underrepresented southern front, which is deemed more strategically significant for achieving the intended objectives.

The report reveals that American planners have advised Ukraine to redirect its focus towards the southern front, specifically driving towards Melitopol. This strategy involves overcoming formidable Russian minefields and defenses, even at the potential cost of higher casualties and equipment losses. The counteroffensive thus far has not seen significant territorial gains, and it’s estimated that Ukraine has suffered a substantial toll with around 45,000 casualties and over 5,000 vehicles lost in the past two months of fighting, all while failing to penetrate Russian defenses effectively.

In a candid assessment, a US official noted that a change in tactics and a more decisive shift in strategy are essential to alter the course of the counteroffensive. Some unnamed sources, however, voiced skepticism about the effectiveness of any adjustments, suggesting that such measures might come too late to yield meaningful results.

What’s particularly perplexing to American and British officials is Ukraine’s continued concentration of forces in the east, despite the counsel to commit to a clear primary effort – in this case, the southern front. Military doctrine in Western nations emphasizes the importance of prioritizing a specific objective. Officials argue that a smaller force could keep Russian defenders occupied while minimizing potential losses. The decision to retake Artyomovsk, while theoretically possible given Ukraine’s troop strength, is viewed as having little strategic value for the high human and material costs it could incur.

The report also touches on a series of diplomatic interactions involving top military figures. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin of the UK, and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Christopher Cavoli, reportedly urged Ukraine’s Chief of General Staff, Valery Zaluzhny, to shift the focus to the southern front. While Zaluzhny agreed initially, President Vladimir Zelensky’s subsequent visit to the “Soledar sector” near Artyomovsk suggests a certain level of inconsistency in Ukraine’s strategic priorities.

While some units have begun redeploying to the south, the report highlights the toll that repeated reconstitution of experienced units has taken due to heavy casualties. With Ukraine tapping into its last strategic reserves, unnamed Western analysts express concerns that the military effort could lose momentum by mid-September, even before unfavorable weather conditions impede operations.

The New York Times acknowledges that American criticism should be considered within the context of military officers who lack direct experience in a conflict of this scale and intensity. The unique challenges posed by Russian electronic warfare, communication interference, and a lack of air superiority create an environment that diverges significantly from traditional war scenarios.

Ukraine launched its much-anticipated offensive in early June with the objective of reclaiming lost territory, but the report reveals a struggle to make substantial progress. The counteroffensive has been marked by the loss of Western-supplied tanks and armored vehicles, raising questions about the efficacy of the strategies employed thus far. As the conflict continues to unfold, the tactical decisions and strategic recalibrations will play a critical role in determining Ukraine’s prospects on the battlefield.