The war in Ukraine is being fought on two fronts within the United States. Two salon fronts: the media and Congress. And in both spaces the conflict has worsened this summer, without it being ruled out that it will get worse in the coming months as the real contest on the ground drags on and the electoral clock runs against Joe Biden and the strong bet on the victory of the invaded country.
It is increasingly obvious that there are nerves and impatience in the Pentagon and the White House. The “senior officers” who usually act as spokespersons for the major local media criticized days ago without blushing – as usual, on the condition that their names are not quoted – what they considered to be a wrong strategy of Volodymyr’s forces Zelenski in the counterattack launched in May.
Not a few retired United States military personnel but with great experience in Afghanistan or Iraq responded and rebuked the criticism of the anonymous officialdom in power. Hours after the verbal clash, a victorious advance of Ukrainian soldiers into Russian lines right through the area where those spokesmen had said troops were lacking – the central Zaporizhia Oblast, Robotine area – proved the veterans right and put a lid on shut up for a while to the authors of the criticism leaked to the mainstream media. The Ukrainian government also told these strategists that they would do better to keep quiet.
The controversial comments about the slowness and alleged ineffectiveness of the Ukrainian counter-offensive were based on the thesis that Kyiv was accumulating too many troops – including some elite ones – in the wrong places.
Instead of concentrating on cutting Russian supply lines to the south and advancing to the Sea of ??Azov through the center of the Zaporizhzhya region, across the road to the cities of Tokmak and Melitopol, the invaded country’s army it would be burning itself unnecessarily in the recapture of Bakhmut in the east and to a lesser extent in distraction fighting near Kherson in the west. These troops would be wasting huge amounts of ammunition.
“Only with a dramatic tactical turn can the rhythm of the counter-offensive be changed”, one of the secret messengers of the Administration went so far as to say.
Three days after the counterclaims of these unnamed senior officials from Washington, the respected commander in Iraq and head of US Central Command and NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, retired general David Petraeus, published an op-ed in The Washington Post in which he asked his country’s politicians and their spokesmen to “not cool their hands over the fact that the Ukrainian counter-offensive has not produced quick results”, since “this it will be a long war”. And, in a forceful response to the same criticisms, he added: “Ukraine needs long-range precision weapons, such as the tactical missile system (Atacms) of the United States Army; it needs cluster munitions for rockets and not just for artillery projectiles; needs more ammunition to sustain the offensive; and needs the accelerated delivery of F-16. In truth, Ukraine needed these capabilities months ago.”
Because, while it is true that the US has provided Ukraine with military aid of impressive dimensions, worth more than 44,000 million dollars so far, according to Petraeus “we still have to do more and with a greater sense of urgency”. Because “the time is now”.
Many other high-ranking and highly experienced military men seconded Petraeus. Former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, a retired four-star general, opined in The Wall Street Journal that “the United States should focus on helping Ukraine fight the war the way he wants to do it instead of playing parrots from the stands”. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe, advocated to The Hill to “put more trust in the judgment of Ukrainian commanders who are actually engaged in the fight.” And Jonathan Sweet, a retired colonel with 30 years of experience as a military intelligence officer, said from the Washington Examiner: “Give Ukraine the weapons it needs and let them fight their fight” because they don’t need more. “The West needs to listen more to Kyiv and less to Westsplain,” concluded Sweet, using a pejorative term coined in Eastern Europe to refer to Western academics who lecture on the conflicts in the area without knowing the context. reality
In the end, the White House itself was forced to correct its unnamed spokespeople. On Friday, the National Security Council’s chief of communications, John Kirby, praised the “remarkable progress achieved in the last 72 hours” by the Ukrainian military on the southern front, in the central Zaporizhia oblast, then surprisingly stated : “I’ve read the criticisms of anonymous officials that, frankly, do not help the overall effort to ensure that Ukraine can succeed.” And he still insisted: “Intervening from the barrier to criticize a partner and friend while trying to advance in bloody and violent conditions does not contribute to the good of the general effort”.
Kirby’s rebuke to his shadow colleagues was followed by furious retorts from Ukrainian rulers. “Criticizing the slow pace of the counteroffensive is like spitting in the face of Ukrainian soldiers who are sacrificing their lives, advancing and liberating kilometer after kilometer of Ukrainian territory,” said Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba. On the same day, August 31, the Ukrainian Defense Department took the trouble to release X a video of accusations against skeptical officials and strategists: “It seems that everyone is now an expert on our war and how we should fight it” , the ministry stated in a sign at the beginning of the recording. At the end he added: “We need ammunition, not advice”. Hours later, Zelenski himself intervened to finish: “Whatever they say, we are moving forward”.
But the pessimistic visions and recommendations for a change of strategy in Ukraine from the outside did not come out of nowhere nor were they completely unfounded. They were motivated by Kyiv’s objective failure to meet the same expectations at the start of its counter-attack and by the knowledge of the very strong Russian defenses through concrete dragon’s teeth, minefields and trenches everywhere. Also the news of certain Russian attacks, in particular the advances of the Russian army on the northeastern front, encouraged and continue to encourage doubts about the advance of Zelenski’s troops.
But everything indicates that behind the official distancing of the United States with respect to the military strategy of Ukraine there may also be electoral concerns. It would be what the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal called a few days ago “an indecent attempt to shift the blame to the White House in case the war continues in an election year”: the one that precedes the presidential elections in November 2024.
The political restlessness stems from the growing disinterest in the Ukrainian cause in American society. According to a recent CNN poll, 55% of Americans reject Congress authorizing more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia; a percentage similar to that of citizens who supported aid a year ago. Within the current 55% rejection, that of Republican voters reaches 71%, compared to 38% of Democrats.
The pressure for the cessation of aid is increasing in the ultra faction of the Republicans in Congress itself. His mentor, Donald Trump, a confessed sympathizer of Vladimir Putin, advocates a quick end to the war through negotiation, under the argument that Ukraine is not important to the US. And even the conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy is reluctant to maintain support for Ukraine.
Biden has repeatedly said that his country will help Kyiv “as long as necessary”. And that “nothing will be done about Ukraine without Ukraine”. The electoral campaign will test all these promises.
