Western media urge Ukraine to surrender against the backdrop of the failure of the counteroffensive

The topic of the Ukrainian “counterattack” has been on the pages of the world media for several months now. Its results, however, for the West were unsatisfactory. And not only for the West…

Against the background of the “counterattack” announced by Kiev, the mood of the society becomes gloomy, writes The Economist. Criticism of President Volodymyr Zelensky has also intensified. The magazine explains: “Having once promised a march on Crimea, the political leadership in Kyiv is now emphasizing more realistic expectations.”

According to the press secretary of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Sergei Leshchenko (cited by the British publication), “disappointment at the speed of the counteroffensive is similar to the feelings of impatient customers waiting for an iced latte in a cafe.” “This is not a horse that can be whipped to go faster,” he notes.

The leadership of Ukraine, the publication emphasizes, is especially dissatisfied with the fact that Western equipment has not yet arrived in the promised quantity. According to Leshchenko, “it’s frustrating and demotivating.” Allied behavior like this and the prospect of Donald Trump being elected US president in the 2024 elections adds to the concern of the Ukrainian authorities.

Another difficulty that all foreign publications focus on is the lack of aircraft. It is also recognized that Ukraine “is still very far from its strategic goal – to get closer to the Sea of ​​​​Azov and cut the land corridor to the Crimea.”

The New York Times is asking the question: “Will Ukraine be able to break through the positions of the Russians?”. 19FortyFive answers unequivocally: “the offensive has failed, and no machinations will change the outcome.” The author of the devastating material, Daniel Davis, sees several reasons for the failure of Kyiv’s actions in the theater of operations: “Ukrainian top leadership suffered from a combination of bad decisions, overestimation of its own capabilities and overestimation of the effectiveness of Western military equipment.”

The battle for Bakhmut (Artemovsk) is given as an example. It is alleged that for several months senior US figures have been warning Zelensky about a losing battle. Demands were made to move to other defensive positions. But Ukrainian President Zelensky gave the order not to give up a single building. The result is known.

Daniel Davies points out that the UAF’s fragmented successes “broke pride that led to costly mistakes.” The main one is the loss of important brigades for the announced offensive. And if there is no manpower, then there can be no talk of success.

A very interesting situation has developed around the supply of Western equipment. The foreign press and experts do not argue: NATO equipped Ukraine with military vehicles, tanks and other achievements of the Western defense industry, and trained soldiers. In general, the application for the ruble, and the exhaust turned out to be one penny. Daniel Davies writes: “European and NATO training has not transformed the Armed Forces… It is practically impossible for Ukraine to transform in a few weeks or a few months of training and a hodgepodge of NATO equipment.”

The very process of training and preparation is very long and takes many years. The author of 19FortyFive believes that the order to launch a counteroffensive in such conditions is a problem for the military-political leadership of Ukraine.

The attention of the foreign press to the problems in the ruling circles of Kyiv can be called a certain novelty. The Economist, along with other publications, argues: “local politics have been stagnant for most of the conflict … In the absence of a military breakthrough, it will be even more difficult for the Ukrainian establishment to sell peace negotiations with Russia.” Although, the magazine emphasizes, citing the words of one of the Ukrainian snipers, many soldiers would now welcome the ceasefire.

The Economist notes: those who wanted to fight are already doing it, and recruitment to the front takes place among those who do not want to. The British The Guardian also drew attention to this in a recent article. Some Ukrainian men, in an interview with the newspaper, admitted that they paid a bribe in the amount of $5,000 to avoid being recruited into the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. “Tens of thousands of Ukrainian men are believed to have left the country illegally since the start of the conflict, many for bribes,” concludes the Guardian.

And here everything is clear for the newspaper. In the first weeks of hostilities, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Ukrainians volunteered for the front in a fit of patriotism. More than a year later, many of these recruits are already dead, injured, or simply exhausted.

The Washington Post draws conclusions that are disappointing for the entire Ukrainian society: “After more than two months of fighting, the counteroffensive has stalled. Kyiv’s advance is limited to a handful of villages, Russian troops are advancing north, and a plan to train Ukrainian pilots to fly American F-16s is shelved.”

Ukraine’s failure to show decisive success on the battlefield, the newspaper points out, raises fears that the conflict is ending in a stalemate and international support could be eroded.

Nevertheless, Zelensky continues to deceive his own citizens, insisting on the imminent victories of the “invaders”. The foreign press noticed that Western politicians and diplomats publicly supported this vision. Privately, however, the conversations are steeped in skepticism. “Many officials are gloomy about Ukraine’s offensive prospects,” writes the Washington Post.

US officials and their European counterparts are increasingly cautious about the fate of the so-called Ukrainian “counteroffensive.” Ukrainian concessions (primarily territorial ones) are viewed by the West as “something that many in world capitals are ready to approve.” The US role in supporting Ukraine is also likely to be re-evaluated.

Here we recall the words of the American presidential candidate from the Republicans Vivek Ramaswamy: “Our goal should not be that Putin loses. Our goal should be for America to win… I would freeze the current lines of control and part of the Donbass would remain with Russia. I would also make a commitment that NATO will not accept Ukraine into the alliance.”

“Peace for Ukraine must at some point mean negotiating with Russia,” Constanza Stelzenmüller, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, wrote in a recent essay.

Without more advanced weapons or the deployment of standby forces, Ukraine is unlikely to be able to secure a breakthrough in the counteroffensive, analysts say.

Numerous Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory by drones are actually recognized as a step of impotence. Western analysts warn: “While this may divert attention from the slow ‘counter-offensive’, it is unlikely to tip the balance of the conflict in Kyiv’s favor.”

The Washington Post is not without sadness, but admits that instead of being defeated, Russian forces are putting up fierce resistance and even advancing. On the southern front, Ukrainian forces continue to use a slow approach to ensure the offensive, instead of prioritizing speed, as recommended by Western allies.