The strategy of the US President Joe Biden's administration, which is to support Ukraine but with certain restrictions to control the level of escalation on the part of Russia, is becoming increasingly controversial.
Why should the White House change its strategy regarding the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine
The authors of the article note that, on the one hand, the White House promises to maintain support for Ukraine, while on the other hand, it expresses constant concern about the risk of direct escalation with Russia.
Both goals are laudable, but in combination they are increasingly working for different ends. In the end, it will be impossible to balance Biden, the journalists emphasise.
The article emphasises that a key point of the White House's strategy regarding the criminal war waged by Russia against Ukraine is the assumption that Western support saves time on the side of the Ukrainian military.
After the Ukrainian military repulsed the initial offensive of the occupation army of the Russian Federation, this statement seemed to be true.
At the same time, the White House was convinced that a number of restrictions would not stand in the way of Ukraine, in particular, restrictions on the types of weapons that are transferred to Ukraine to launch strikes exclusively on the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia.
However, currently, as the authors of the article note, the statement that time is on Ukraine's side looks doubtful, because Russia is rebuilding its own army much faster than expected.
Despite the sanctions, the Russian economy showed modest growth in 2023 and has every chance of repeating it this year.
At the same time, as noted in the material, the strategic position of Ukraine is becoming more and more dangerous.
Due to the shortage of weapons and ammunition, the Ukrainian military was forced to give up a number of positions on the eastern front.
Although American weapons are now flowing back into Ukraine, it will take time for them to reach the front lines.
Perhaps even more relevant than the military situation is the political dynamic of the war. A year and a half ago, we wrote that the United States has more patience in supporting Ukraine than many commentators believed at the time... Nevertheless, there is no denying that any future assistance to Ukraine faces significant obstacles... Future aid to Ukraine may depend on who wins the US election,’ the authors emphasise.
At the same time, journalists warn that Ukraine also has fewer opportunities to change the strategic narrative.
Currently, due to the crisis in the Middle East and the approaching presidential elections in the USA, Ukraine no longer has the same amount of world attention as it did at the beginning of the criminal invasion of the occupation army of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the journalists note that the strong and constant support of Ukraine is maintained by the EU.
How to seize the initiative in the war for Ukraine
Analysts emphasise that Ukraine will need to deliver powerful blows deep into the territory of the Russian Federation, since the aggressor country uses the internal railway network to support the occupied Ukrainian territories.
Even with all the means of air defence, Ukraine is still far from having sufficient capability to cover a huge area.
Therefore, the Ukrainian military needs to strike Russian airbases, bombers, and launchers.
The first step in this direction, as the authors of the material note, was taken by Great Britain, allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles for strikes on Russian territory.
Currently, the US should allow Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russia.
In addition, Ukraine also needs strengthening of air defence from its partners.
Russia's air power—especially its attack helicopters and drones—was one of the key reasons Ukraine's 2023 counteroffensive failed.
The Russian Federation lost only about 10% of its aircraft.
Thus, Ukraine needs not only air defence systems, but its own powerful air force to defeat the aviation of the aggressor country, strike Russian bases and stop Russian armored vehicles.
The F-16 fighter jets that some of the US allies in Europe will send to Ukraine will help in this, especially if they are equipped with the appropriate ammunition.
However, the authors of the material warn that these planes are unlikely to become a lifeline for the Ukrainian Air Force.
For Ukraine to obtain the air force potential it needs, a wider set of capabilities will be needed, including higher-flying, sophisticated drones and means of radio-electronic warfare from ground or air platforms.
Finally, Ukraine will have to assume a greater operational risk if and when it launches a counteroffensive... It will have to accept the operational risk and face the likely possibility that the first days or weeks of this counteroffensive will cost them large losses in manpower and material assets in order to in order to create such an operational breakthrough that can destroy the Russian defense lines,’ note the authors of the material.
The war in Ukraine may look particularly bleak at the moment, they add, but the outcome of the conflict is far from certain.
If Ukraine wants to regain its lost operational momentum, it will need more equipment and ammunition.
Thanks to the latest aid packages, Ukraine has the resources to receive them.
The war in Ukraine may look particularly bleak at the moment, they add, but the outcome of the conflict is far from certain.
If Ukraine wants to regain its lost operational momentum, it will need more equipment and ammunition.
Thanks to the latest aid packages, Ukraine has the resources to receive them.
However, for the Biden administration to take such a risk would mean abandoning one of the foundations of its strategy of the past two years, choosing a single path and accepting the potentially escalating consequences that could arise. It's a tough choice. However, not doing it can be even more risky,’ emphasise the authors of the material.
