Ukraine Faces Slow, Protracted Defeat—Military Analysts

The Biden administration has not given a clear commitment to Kyiv winning the war started by Vladimir Putin. This means that Ukraine faces a long slow defeat, military analysts have said.

Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the U.S. has denied Ukrainians the weapons they need to hit Russian targets. He also questioned whether President Joe Biden really wants Ukraine to win.

While there are congressional hold-ups to providing further U.S. aid to Kyiv, Washington has been the biggest donor to Ukraine since the start of Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion. This is despite calls from GOP lawmakers to cut the budget for Ukraine.

O'Brien said that while Biden may have said the U.S. would help Ukraine "for as long as it takes," his administration has "never made a clear commitment to a Ukrainian victory" in which it can liberate all its legally recognized territory and become part of NATO.

"Perhaps the reason for this reluctance is obvious: the Biden administration doesn't want Ukraine to win," he wrote, describing how the Biden administration "wants to force a sordid deal on Kyiv" in which it cedes territory to Putin.

"The best evidence of this is that the administration has bent over backward not to supply Ukraine with the weapons needed to hit Russian targets in Crimea," he said.

Among the nearly $50 billion in military aid that the U.S. has provided are HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems), howitzers, artillery, fighting vehicles and ammunition as well as defensive weapons such as Patriot antiair systems.

Ukraine has used HIMARS to hit Russian ammunition and supply depots but O'Brien said the U.S. had limited the type of HIMARS ammunition it provided, which meant Ukraine could only attack within about 50 miles of the front—leaving Crimea off-limits.

"In depriving the Ukrainians of the ability to mount a sustained, long-range campaign against Russia, the administration is leaving Kyiv without the capability it needs to win," he added.

This sentiment has also been expressed by other military experts such as retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who has called for Ukraine to get the full capabilities to strike targets in Crimea.

O'Brien's op-ed was shared on X (formerly Twitter) by Mykola Bielieskov, a research fellow at Kyiv-based National Institute for Strategic Studies, who posted that he would be "more blunt" in his assessment and that the way military aid is being given to Ukraine "is the recipe for slow protracted defeat."

"Asymmetry in long range firepower means with artificial constraints imposed on Ukraine is just one example that leads to such a conclusion," Bielieskov added.

In response to the claims, the U.S. State Department told Newsweek in a statement: "we want to see Ukraine win this war," and that "we are the reason Putin has not totally overrun Ukraine and moved beyond that."

"The people of the United States can and should take pride that we've enabled Ukraine's success thanks to the steady supply of weapons and ammunition we've provided Ukraine together with our partners and our allies."

It comes as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky told The Economist that Ukraine's goals were to have more success in the Black Sea where it has struck Russian targets and make progress in occupied Crimea, which longer-range weapons would help.

Zelensky also said that western military help was not just in the interest of Ukraine but in the interest of the West because "Ukrainians are fighting for the world."

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.