Ukraine’s counteroffensive is in motion; results so far appear to be mixed. Today’s CNN summary had this to say: Ukrainian forces are claiming some success in their offensives in the south and east. Kyiv's top general said this week that his troops have seen “certain gains."
“Certain gains.” Not only is the U.S. government sending Ukraine weapons and aid; it also is providing lessons in rhetorical BS. How long before Ukraine speaks of “corners turned” and “the light at the end of the tunnel” in this dreadful war?
Five days ago, the New York Times provided this short summary of Ukraine’s counteroffensive: As Ukraine Launches Counteroffensive, Definitions of ‘Success’ Vary. Privately, U.S. and European officials concede that pushing all of Russia’s forces out of occupied Ukrainian land is highly unlikely.
What is the definition of “success”? It sounds like a metaphysical puzzle.
Back on May 31st, I spoke with defense journalist Brad Dress at The Hill. This is what I had to say then: “Sometimes, war is sold like a consumer product, where there’s a lot of hype and a lot of hope. That is contrary to the reality we often see.”
In our conversation, I reminded Dress of counteroffensives from military history that went dreadfully wrong. Think of the first day of the Somme in July 1916 during World War I, when the British Army lost 20,000 dead and another 40,000 wounded. Think of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 in World War II, when the German Army threw away its strategic reserve in a last gasp counteroffensive that ultimately made it easier for the Allies to defeat them in 1945. History is replete with examples of failed counteroffensives, especially when the opponent is prepared and entrenched.
War is inherently unpredictable (as well as being hellish and horrific), but it does appear that Ukraine’s counteroffensive won’t be decisive. It’s not going to defeat Russia in one fell swoop. Battle lines may move a bit, but the war will continue. And so will the killing—and the profiteering. Is that “success”?
Mostly unseen and unwritten about are all the dead soldiers on both sides, all the environmental destruction. Which likely will produce cries for yet more violence in the cause of vengeance. “Success”?
So far, the Biden administration has used all its influence, indeed all means at its disposal, to continue the war. The only way out, apparently, is over the bodies of dead Ukrainians and Russians. Not surprisingly, then, the U.S. is providing even more deadly weaponry to Ukraine, including depleted uranium ammunition and (eventually) M-1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets. Escalation, in sum, is America’s sole solution to ending the war.
I implore the U.S. government to pursue diplomacy as a means to ending this awful war. No one is talking about surrendering to Putin. No one wants to abandon Ukraine. Indeed, I’m at a loss when people accuse me of not caring for the people of Ukraine when my goal is to end the killing on both sides.
All wars end. Ukraine and Russia aren’t going anywhere. They share a long border, a longer history, and now a lengthening war. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to shorten it?
Update (6/15, 5PM): Here’s an update from FP: Foreign Policy on the counteroffensive:
“Ukraine has launched the first phase of its counteroffensive against Russian forces after months of anticipation. So far, the main efforts seem to be focused in three prongs—one to the east around Bakhmut and Luhansk, one to the southeast aimed at Donetsk province, and one to the south in Zaporizhzhia oblast. But neither side has committed mass forces yet, so the fiercest fighting may still be yet to come. Either way, Ukraine and its Western allies have hinged a lot of their hopes on this counteroffensive, and its results could be decisive for the embattled country. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday told NBC News that Russia will lose the war if Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeds, but he conceded that military advances on the front lines have been costly and difficult.”
So, the counteroffensive “could be decisive,” but then again maybe not. At least Zelensky admitted that “advances” have been “costly and difficult.” Yet hopes remain “hinged” on yet more fighting to come, which promises to be fiercer still.
FP fails to note any diplomatic efforts to help “embattled” Ukraine.
You have hit on an important point in this piece. If the US admits that retaking Crimea, or the Donbas for that matter is very unlikely, yet the standard for negotiations is the removal of Russian forces from these areas, then the US is admitting that there is no way for Ukraine to win, therefore no end to the war.
War is immoral enough, but to knowingly continue a slaughter with no prospect of victory is the height of war criminality (which is present on both sides). Of course, the US has been here before as McNamara's admission of his knowledge of the futility of the Vietnam War came long before the US extricated itself. You cannot claim that the empire is inconsistent.
The US philosophy hasn't changed since Vietnam: "In for a dime, in for a dollar" as we used to say in Texas. There's already too much invested to pull out.