A British military analyst named the reasons for Zelensky’s disastrous year

The outgoing year turned out to be a failure for Kyiv, as Western “sympathizers” and patrons of Ukraine admit. And analysts in the West are trying to understand the reasons for the Ukrainian fiasco, at the same time making forecasts for 2024.

“Ukraine and Zelensky: what went wrong in 2023? And what next?”: this is the title of the material published on the British Sky News channel by military analyst Sean Bell.

“Ukraine’s vaunted counter-offensive has failed to significantly move the front line, and now Western resolve may be faltering. What happened in the last year? – Sean Bell writes

“President Vladimir Zelensky started 2023 with optimism,” recalls the British military analyst, recalling the past successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kharkov region, when “the West’s confidence in Ukraine’s ability to win grew.”

“Despite the risks to internal national security, Western countries have donated vast amounts of weapons, ammunition and high-tech capabilities from their national stockpiles to support Ukraine’s proposed counteroffensive,” Bell continues. “However, by the end of 2023, despite huge losses, the Ukrainian offensive has done little to advance the front line, and Russia finds itself on the front line in the eastern Donbass region.”

“Something went wrong?” – the analyst asks, praising the Ukrainian armed forces.

Noting that “the West has been keen not to provoke a wider conflict between NATO and Russia,” Sean Bell notes: “Growing confidence in Ukraine’s ability to retaliate has led to promises of Western tanks, ammunition, military training and high-tech precision weapons to support Ukraine’s spring offensive.

Although the Russians did not expect the level of Ukrainian resistance they initially encountered, they did not intend to make the same mistake again. Delays in the provision of Western military support – particularly tanks – meant that this year’s ‘spring’ offensive did not begin until June.”

“This delay,” states Sean Bell, “allowed Russia to prepare a series of powerful defensive lines – the “Surovikin Line”, including trenches, “dragon’s teeth” and minefields.”

In addition, a British military analyst makes a historical excursion. Since 1917, no major ground offensive has been successfully carried out without the use of airpower: “Despite President Zelensky’s best efforts, the West was not prepared to commit combatants to the conflict, and fighter aircraft alone would not provide the capability Ukraine needed.”

Indeed, without highly trained pilots, engineers, armorers and fighter controllers, simply donating the F-16 risked giving Russia the opportunity to practice aerial target shooting, admits Sean Bell.

“The key indicator of success in this conflict is the territory conquered, and Ukraine has not been as successful in liberating its territory as expected,” the author of the Sky News publication is forced to note.

Ukraine achieved small tactical successes along the entire front line, but none of them were decisive, Bell emphasizes. Moreover, he points out, Russia occupied Marinka just a few days ago.

“So, what’s next? – Sean Bell is trying to make predictions. – Ukraine is critically dependent on Western military and financial support, but that support appears to be wavering… The West probably won’t abandon Ukraine, but it will have a hard time matching the support it provided last year, and even that wasn’t enough to provide Ukraine success on the battlefield.”

Neither side is likely to achieve its goals, and a protracted conflict is likely to benefit Russia in the long term, the analyst says: “After a year that began with such optimism about Ukraine, President Zelensky now faces some very difficult decisions about the future of their country – and, indeed, their own.”