© AP Photo/Kin Cheung/TASS
Western newspapers seem to be competitively inventing a disappointing diagnosis to the Ukrainian counteroffensive. “Failure”, “futility”, “a war that cannot be won” — to name a few definitions used by the Western, mainly American press to describe the situation Ukraine and the entire West have found themselves in. What is it? A veiled call for Russia to sit down to talk peace?
Western press has been a really interesting thing to read in these recent weeks, with its AFU and much-hyped counteroffensive assessments. The US administration, along with its subordinate European capitals and media are seemly willing to back-pedal and somehow neutralize the euphoria the West has been choking with in early summer while awaiting Russia’s inevitable "defeat on the battlefield."
"Is it time to negotiate with Putin? We’re past the ‘fairy tale stage’ of the war in Ukraine. How does it end?" The New York Times anticipates a discussion of political analysts who think the parties should find a peaceful solution, but none is ready for it. What is implied here is peaceful dialogue as the only way out. Why now? There has been a reason, mind you. "In the first two weeks of Ukraine’s grueling counteroffensive, as much as 20 percent of the weaponry it sent to the battlefield was damaged or destroyed, according to American and European officials. The toll includes some of the formidable Western fighting machines — tanks and armored personnel carriers — the Ukrainians were counting on to beat back the Russians," The New York Times writes in another article.
"An Unwinnable War. Washington Needs an Endgame in Ukraine," the once-respectable Foreign Affairs magazine titled one of its pieces, pointing to the Biden administration’s lack of precise plans to end war. "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a moment of clarity for the United States and its allies. An urgent mission was before them: to assist Ukraine as it countered Russian aggression and to punish Moscow for its transgressions. While the Western response was clear from the start, the objective—the endgame of this war—has been nebulous. This ambiguity has been more a feature than a bug of US policy," the outlet justifies itself.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is quoted as saying that "We have in fact refrained from laying out what we see as an endgame...". Making excuses for not knowing to finish your "project" sounds ridiculous, but this is exactly how Foreign Affairs presents it, making it clear that the US administration is looking for way out of the most challenging situation it faces over Kiev’s failure to make the grade.
American media highlight the fact that apart from depleted military aid, Kiev is running out of human resources. "Ukraine sends the powerhouse 82nd Air Assault Brigade into battle, as generals decide 'to put all their chips on the table," Business Insider writes, referring to AFU’s last offensive reserve. "Ukraine’s Big Summer Offensive Won’t Win the War Against Russia," claims popular military portal 19fortyfive.com, providing a fairly objective analysis of fighting and Kiev’s prospects. Nothing came of it, although the West had put Ukraine in the driving seat. "Ukraine had reportedly assembled 12 mechanized brigades for the operation, manned with up to 40,000 troops. They had spent the better part of a half-year preparing for the attack, and their preparation featured training on combined arms warfare in NATO countries. They were equipped with British Challenger 2 tanks, German Leopard 2 tanks, U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored troop carriers, and other modern NATO kit. Given the circumstances, Ukraine was as prepared as any nation fighting an invasion could be," 19fortyfive.com reports.
The outlet has arrived at the same conclusion as its colleagues: "The Biden administration should devise new plans based on the battlefield realities and come up with a plan that protects America’s security interests and economic prosperity. Blindly supporting Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ was never a strategy and is now appearing less sustainable than ever." Oh, really?! Didn’t’ both the White House and Western politicians recently beat their chest vociferating their countries’ readiness to help Ukraine "for as long as it takes?" Now it turns out to have never been a strategy…
As if dispelling any doubts about Ukraine’s army failure, 19fortyfive.com notes the following: "A leaked classified report cautioned that U.S. intelligence officials believed the Ukrainian offensive may only produce ‘modest territorial gains.’ Nearly three months after the offensive began, those concerns have been borne out."
The West has acknowledged its impotence, although you can still hear Western politicians voice sporadic, persistent, rousing rhetoric. Seemingly waiting for some peaceful signals from Russia, the United States itself loathes to appear as peace dialogue initiator after creating a stalemate of its own "defeat Russia" propaganda. To Washington, asking for peace implies admitting defeat. It knows pretty well that Russia will discuss the likely end of war on its own terms alone, with no eye on President Biden's pre-election street cred. Hence the signals broadcast to us through the press about the need for a peaceful Ukraine conflict settlement, with White House and European officials keeping mum themselves.
But do we need to talk to a backpedaling defeated rival? The one anxiously waiting for us to die and only taking a breather for a new attack.
